.*»^o*
**
Z lUBSAKIESl
(9
HD2C
^-,s.
iust"
Mar j^
ALFRED
P.
WORKING PAPER
SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT ISSUES IN NEW PRODUCT TEAMS
IN HIGH TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES
By
Deborah Gladstein Ancona
Sloan School, M.I.T.
David F. Caldwell
Leavey School of Business
Santa Clara Universit^'
WP 1840-86
November 1986
MASSACHUSETTS
TECHNOLOGY
50 MEMORIAL DRIVE
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139
INSTITUTE OF
_.
MANAGEMENT ISSUES IN NEW PRODUCT TEAMS
IN HIGH TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES
By
Deborah Gladstein Ancona
Sloan School, M.I.T.
David F. Caldwell
Leavey School of Business
Santa Clara University
WP 1840-86
November 1986
To be published in Advances in Industrial Relations ,
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., forthconing.
MAR
1 9 1987
,
The
ability
successful
develop
to
new products will make to sales growth
profits generated by new products
& Hamilton, 1982).
particularly
introduction
irnportant
organizational
industries,
survival.
issue
the
is
expected to increase by one-
high
technology
industries,
technologies may be
and
companies
For
not
is
expected to increase by 50 percent
is
This need for new product development
in
new products
of
for
During this time, the portion of total coopany
third during the 1980s.
is
critical
is
Business experts note that the contribution which
many organizations.
(Booz, Allen
new products
solely the
where
the
necessary
for
highly
in
conqjetitive
introduction of new products,
but also how to quicken the product development process (David, 1984).
The growing inportance of the developnent of new products can pose
difficult challenges for management.
As many have noted (c.f. Drucker
current employment policies and management practices may not be
1985)
adequate
to
ensure
the
that
orgsmizat ion
has
appropriate
the
htxnan
resources and management skills necessary to guarantee that new product
quickly developed.
raised
effectiveness
A variety
ideas can be most
1983),
about
huraaji
the
of
organizational
resource policies (Fcufcrxm, et. al.,
techniques (Frohman, 1978)
Recently,
a
nmber
of
in
of concerns have been
structure
(Kanter,
1984), and managenKnt
enhancing product development.
strategies have been proposed to
identify
and enhance factors contributing to innovation and product develojinent
in organizations
authors
have
(Burgelman & Sayles, 1986; Drucker, 1985).
described
how the
product
development
Since many
process
can
be
influenced by organizational variables (e.g. Baldridge & Burnham, 1976;
Cohen & Mowery, 1984; Damanpour & Evan,
1984),
it
is
not our
intent
to
review or
describe
sunxnarize
of management
set
a
findings.
these
Rather,
issues
it
facing
is
our
intent
to
specific groups
the
responsible for product development within an organization.
Within many
industries,
developnent
is
the new product
names,
is
the group of
this
primary mechanism for product
the
Although known by a variety of
team-
individuals who oust cooperate to develop,
design, test market, and prepare the new product for production.
These
new product teams differ from many other organizational groups in that
they
are
functional,
cross
ccnposition across time.
face
variety
a
of
outside
the
internally,
viable
product
management
The
organization,
and use
of
conplex
those
interactions
process
inputs
(Burgelman,
such groups
and
change
in
Successful new product teams nust be able to
effectively obtain information and resources
and
tasks,
to
within
such
both
and
inside
resources
and gain acceptance
create
of more
be
infontiation
Understanding
1983).
caji
the
frczn others,
the
operation
practical
than
of
groups and between
a
and
usefulness.
the
product
team and other groups within the orgimizat ion can provide a powerful
test of general izabi
The
basic
1 i
ty of traditional
premise
this
of
research on group processes.
paper
is
that
group
processes,
particularly those dealing with boundary management, can influence the
success of new product teams.
used to collect data, we wi
team nust
conplete.
Following a discussion of the methods we
1 1
Second,
first describe
we will
the
discuss
task the new product
previous
research
on
boundary spanning, relate this research to the new product team's task,
and
propose
performance.
seme
relationships
between boundary management
and
team
Method
The
findings
this
of
paper were
derived both
from a
review of
literature and frcm over 135 hours of interviews with new product team
managers
and naembers
integrated
circuit
corporations
seven
at
Four
industries.
computer
the
in
team leaders were
and
interviewed
within six weeks of conpletion or their projects for between three to
Using a semi-structured interview, we asked these managers
ten hours.
how their new product
teams were
time (e.g. key events,
crises,
set
how the
up,
teams
evolved over
tasks), how the teams coordinated their
efforts with other groups, and how key decisions were made.
descriptive
inportant
ninijer
of
data were
factors
conqjiled,
them what
asked
success of a new product
for
interviews
other
we
were
conducted.
team.
they
In
Another
Once these
saw as
addition,
a
team leader was
interviewed every four to six weeks over a 20 month period to provide
some
sense
develops.
of
the
potential
In addition,
issues
facing
a
product
four managers of multiple teams,
16
team as
it
new product
team leaders and six marbers of teams were interviewed during various
phases
of
development
product
evaluation of team activities.
transcribed;
to
to
The
get
further
a
description
and
interviews were tape recorded and
the transcriptions were then evaluated by nultiple raters
identify transitions in the product development process and boundary
behaviors.
This san^jle
test
is
not meant
specific hypotheses.
adequately represent
the
Rather,
loosely be
frcm the
described as
representative or
our goal
task and processes
This will allow us to augment
with observations
to be
a
the current
field.
to
of
the
ensure that we can
new product
team.
literature on group process
Hence,
ccnparative
is
large enough to
case
the
approach we used could
analysis.
This
research
strategy was
process
orgzmizat ions
in
lack
the
because we believe
chosen
formal
of
we
organizations,
is
an early
at
research on
believe
the
research
and
interdependent
attanpting
group
on
development.
stage of
Given
groups
exploration and
that
classification of phencrnena,
that
within
description,
identify observable
to
patterns of activities niist all proceed the proposition and testing of
specific hypotheses (Gladstein & Quinn, 1985).
Tbe Nev Product Team' s Task
Recently, Goodnmn
has presented a strong argixnent
(1986)
for
the
necessity of understanding the task of a group as an integral part any
model
of
group performance
likely
(Herold,
a
clear
incorrect generalizations about group
imderstanding of a group's task,
behavior are
Without
group process.
or
Therefore, before discussing the
1979).
group processes within new product teams,
it
important to begin with
is
an understsmding of what the teams must do.
A new product team
the
development
product
aind
Flesher
interdependent,
are
individuals
introduction
(Flesher,
line
individuals who are responsible for
is a set of
of
& Skelly,
see
outside
products
In
1984).
themselves
as
a
the
existing
general,
group,
and
these
are
viewed by others in the organization as a group (Alderfer,
1976), even
though group men±)ership may change and increase over time.
A
nixcber of
new product groups may be created and aborted early in the developnent
process.
Those groups
survive
have
potential
access
to
large
resources and may shape the future of the organization
organizational
(Kidder,
that
1981).
The key
to
the
success of
task denands at each phase of
these groups
the product
4
is
to meet
the
separate
development process.
This
the group be able to effectively obtain
requires that
information and
resources frcm external sources, process the infotrmtion and resources
internally,
viable product
has
those
inputs
(Burgelnan,
1983).
and use
create and gain acceptance of a
to
Research on new product managonent
identified six phases of new product developnent and new product
introduction assiming
that
Allen &Hanulton, 1982).
1)
product
strategy
is
in
place
(Booz,
These six phases include:
generation
Idea
new product
a
development.
This
.
phase
involves
It
the
is
initial
recognition
the
step
of
in
new
technical
a
opportunity to fill a perceived need in the marketplace (Holt, 1975).
2)
Screening and
developnent
evaluation
The
.
second phase
of
product
involves the selection of those ideas that deserve further
A major intent
in-depth study.
of this stage is to eliminate ideas not
fitting the organization's market or technical strengths (Booz, Allen &
Hamilton, 1982).
3)
product
products
Business analysis
This phase
.
consideration
under
(Mclntyre & Statman,
fits
1982)
involves determining how the
into
the
portfolio of
and whether
it
is
other
new
economical ly
feasible.
4)
Deve opment
1
.
The
development
phase
centers
on
the
modification of the product idea into a technically feasible prototype.
This
is
the
phase
in
which
the
group
does
the
bulk
of
the
work
designing and building the initial product models.
5)
Testing
meeting both
1977).
This
.
Testing insures that the new product
technical
phase
and market
goals
requires monitoring
data (Adler, 1966).
5
or
standards
customer
is
capable of
(Von Hippie,
complaints
and
test
.
Connercialization
6)
The final phase involves the developoKnt
.
of the production and narketing capabilities necessary to introduce the
product on a
including the development of mechaniais
large scale,
for
continuing follow-up and monitoring (Booz, Allen & Hamilton, 1982).
Each phase describes a sequence of events that a product laist neve
through in order to be introduced effectively.
process
that
is
activities
the
and
focus
One
of
a
iiqp 1
i
ca t i on of this
new product
team nny
change over the course of product developnent
Although
activity,
1978).
seme
of
set
reality
in
Like
proceeds
this
phases
process
the
suggests
not
is
(Quinn,
As
information
Our
1982).
interviews
decision making process,
As
developnent
product
a
greater
continues,
level
fed
available
to
addition,
corrmercia
help
in
1
i
for
process
so
the
order
zat ion
responsible
in
there
deciding whether
to
costs
develop
need
to
into the ongoing
is
achieved.
group actually may cycle back
the
screening and evaluation stage,
(Frohnan,
suggested that
specificity
of
through earlier phases or ahead to future phases.
the
of
only slowly becomes
auid
collected and
is
sequence
straightforward
so
often the original product idea is very general
more specific.
linear
new product development often
strategic decisions,
incrementally
a
is
to
an
often a rough prototype
choose
that
accurate
estimated.
be
For example, during
product.
business
Those
In
plan,
actually
ccmnercial izat ion need to be notified early enough in
that manufacturing
facilities
group waits until the testing phase
may well be late to market.
It
is
are
available.
If
the
finished to do this, the product
has been shown that there is a need to
integrate technical and economic considerations early, or large suns of
money cem be wasted on a product that
6
is
technically feasible but not
conmercially viable (Mansfield & Wagner,
going
times,
through several
nizoerous functional groups
through
The process may cycle
1972).
hierarchical
several
levels
and
(Burgelman, 1983).
Product developnent appears to be a messy, undirected process, and
indeed,
However,
suggests.
and
direct
to
straightforward
less
is
it
two
transition points,
events as
serve
events
new product
the
divide
inq)ortance
indicated
the
group's
each
that
of
sequential
shape
they
Our data suggest
process
group's
segments
these
three
into
the
phase model
define or divide
to
that
in
understanding
in
the
the
process
We refer to these
team's activities.
demands placed on the group.
points
than
and
that
change
task
these trajisition
general
process,
the
segments.
our
placed different
Of
interviews
internal
and
external demands upon the team.
The first of these transition points generally seems to occur just
prior to the major portion of the developnent phase and
it
shift
frcm a "possible" project to a "definite" project.
shift
the
comiitment
cost
this
time,
product.
it
is
one
to
and
the group
giving
in
is not
return
the case,
for
structure
itself
potential
to
major
capital
response
to
(Pessimier,
fairly clear
1977).
specification of
By
the
the group cannot be clear about what
the
support,
product.
internally,
schedules will not be in place.
feasibility
from low
organizational
for
During this
This entails movement
from top management
should have a
over- or under-expectat ions
cannot
idea.
organizational
ccrnnitment
If this
recognition of
new product
with minimal
effort
investment
frcm a
team moves
involves the
which can
In addition,
because
lead
to
the group
specific goals
and
The second transition usually occurs sccoe^ere during the testing
problens
technological
The
phase.
several months working under
The
upon date.
prototype
a
The team may very will have spent the last
exists and has been tested.
agreed
assessed,
been
have
intense pressure trying to finish at the
transition consists
of moving
team
frooa
ownership of the product to more general organizational ownership.
other
time
this
organizational
groups
are
preparing
production and distribution of the product.
for
large-scale
This corresponds to
Quinn and Niieller (1972) would call a technology transfer point,
moves
emphasis
the
group
is
organization.
the
in
either
unwilling
to
The
transition will
relinquish
continue to work on the product when
to
^ere
passing
it
the
be met
not
the
or
unwilling
to
into
the hands
of
product
has passed
if
As one of the managers in our sanple described it, "...then we
others.
had
technology
the
ixiiat
enthusiasn and authority to use that technology to other
information,
groups
from developing
At
this
repairs
big
fight.
later,
but
\fcnufacturing wanted
engineering wanted
to
to
hold
build
it.
now and make
it
People were very
Manufacturing yanked its people off the team."
Later, however,
"Now we're helping to train the manufacturing people.
The group isn't
upset.
meeting much though, and people don't sean to know what to do now that
the intensity is over."
These
two
transition points
seemed
to
divide
developiKnt process into three segments (See Figure 1).
the
new product
These segments
could loosely be labeled creation, developnent and transfer.
In order
to understand the developnent of group processes within the new product
team,
it
is
necessary to understand the changing task demands over the
course of product developnent.
As the demands placed upon the product
8
team change across the se^nents of the product development process, we
predict that the management of boundary processes and ccnmitment to the
product within the team oust change.
New Product TtmuB
Boundairy Ikfcnaganent in
Research on boundary management to date has focused primarily on
the organizational and individual
organizational
levels of analysis.
Research at the
level has addressed processes by which
the organization
adapts to its environment by selecting,
information
1977; Child,
originating
the
in
Individual
1972).
tranani tt ing, and interpreting
environnent
Aldrich & Herker,
research has concentrated on the
level
characteristics of boundary spanners
(e.g.
(e.g.
Caldwell & O'Reilly,
1982)
and the role conflict these individuals experience (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn,
& Rosenthal,
Snoek,
Keller & Holland,
1964;
1975;
Organ & Greene,
1974).
Fewer studies of boundary management have been done at
This
level.
is
surprising,
because groups,
like
the group
organizations,
are
open systems that need to manage their relationships with the external
environment.
the
However, much of the research on groups has been done in
laboratory or with T-groups
groups,
the external
they exist.
to obtain
inputs and outputs.
consists
of
work
in
isolation.
For
enviroment consists of the organization
Groups mist
resources,
that
interact with interdependent others
to coordinate work,
For
carrying
same groups,
out
make decisions,
"real"
in
^ich
in
order
and exchange
this boundary spanning process
transactions
across
the
organization-
environment boimdary, as well (Thcn^json, 1967).
One set of boundary spanning studies that has focused on the group
level
examines
the
pattern of work-related
9
information
flow in R &
D
(e.g., Allen,
laboratories
general,
1984; Katz,
1982;
Tusbmn, 1977, 1979).
found a relationship between the
these studies have
information by boundary spanners and performance
exanple,
R&D
high-performing
project
comnunication with organizational
followed a
the
In
showed
outside
far
the
addition,
information fran outside and then translating the
to the group (Tuslman,
it
research
group-level
of
For
greater
group
than
conmuni cat ion
first getting
information amd
Although most of
1979).
spanning
boundary
on
input
group.
two-step process, with conmmication "stars"
transmitting
the
colleagues
1984).
(Allen,
teams
low-performing
groups
the
in
In
has
been
limited
to
studying how menbers bring information into the group, exchange theory
would suggest
that
when a
team
is
part
relationships,
of
of
boxmdary spanning
needed (Bagozzi, 1975).
is
system organized by an
broader
interconnecting web
a
a
conceptualization of
Boandary Muaaganesit Decisions
Our interviews suggested that, within new product teams, a ninljer
of decisions made by
team leaders or others
in positions
of
authority
could influence the nature of the interactions the team developed with
other groups.
Thus,
the boundary of
design variable whereby
the
the group could be
decisions made could determine,
the nature of the relations the new product
The
nature
of
the
2)
part,
in
team had with other groups
These decisions fell into:
within or outside the organization.
definition of the boundary;
treated as a
1)
The
The permeability of the boundary; and
transactions
across
the
group's
boundaries.
3)
The
literature on groups has also addressed these boimdary properties.
Boundary Definition.
An important tool for defining the nature of
the interactions of the team with other groups involves the decision of
10
who
is
included
Including
team.
the
in
representatives
fron all
groups, with whom the team nust deal, on the team is likely to lead to
processes
boundary
different
than
represented.
Similarly,
to define
resources which the
the
acquired
be
inplications
externally.
the
for
^o
the decision of
nature
(O'Reilly & Caldwell,
1986)
not
team possesses and those which nust
the
of
are
on the team will serve
is
variability of
The
groups
relevant
if
and
group's
the
team also has
internal
interactions
effectiveness
its
innovating
in
(O'Reilly & Flatt, 1986).
Boundary Permeability
^ich
A second design
.
the boundary is open or closed.
potentially
and more
cohesive
less
groups with more
rigid
which the boundary
is
boundaries
tool
is
the
extent
Groups with open boundaries are
difficult
(Alder fer,
control
to
1976).
open or closed also can
The
influence
(Gladstein,
extent
the
makes transactions across
categorized by what
is
patterns of exchange.
influence
i
ts
and
Exchanges
boimdar ies.
exchanged between
it
nust
can
units as well
social
as
be
the
Hence, boundary activity can be categorized by
power
flow
Tichy & Fombrun,
information and
liking,
into
whether group meniers or outsiders
1983;
way the
Choices are also made about the way a team
.
Aether goods and services, affect and
Wood,
to
1986).
Boundary Transactions
and/or
those
than
group views its environment and defines the problems with which
deal
to
out
or
initiate
1979).
of
the
This
the
group,
exchange
broader
ideas,
and
by
(Brinberg &
categorization
describes the set of activities needed to engage in social and economic
exchanges necessary to accoriplish interdependent tasks in environoKnts
in
which
resources
are
somewhat
limited
11
or
dispersed
throughout
the
organization.
this categorization takes
In addition,
into account not
only the hoiindary activities that the group needs to initiate but also
the reactive role that group modsers nust play in response to external
demands or requests.
V^ile group composition
least
the
in
short
permeability and
by
influenced
often defined by the organization, at
hence
and
ren,
nature
the
behaviors
the
is
the
of
of
the
initially
boundary
fixed,
boundary transactions can be
group meniers.
interviews
Our
indicate that particular roles are often taken on by group menbers to
carry out transactions and change boundary penneabi 1 ity.
BoondAry Koles in Hev Prodnct Teana
As
we
previously noted,
exchange
theory would
suggest
that
transactions across a boiindary could be described by whether the flow
was in to or out of the target group and by whether the transaction was
initiated within
interviews
boundary
the
supported
spanning
group
this
roles.
conceptualization and suggest
One
role,
which we
or resources from other groups and attaint
This
organizations.
is
traditional
the
conception
The second role, which we
information
spanning
the Arbassador
label
role,
them back into the
boundary
of
separate
Scout
seek out
to bring
from our
four
term the
those activities whereby group merrbers
describes
group.
The data
from outside.
or
in
role,
describes the activities tsJten by group meniers to transnit information
or outputs
carry
on
represent
from the group to outsiders.
critical
boundary
group members
third role represents
inputs from outsiders.
Thus,
transactions.
responses
to
the scout and aniiassador
The
requests
remaining
roles
from outsiders.
The
two
things done by the group members
in response to
We describe this as the Sentry role.
12
The final
activities
of
set
the group mprrtiers
represent
processing of
requests
for information or outputs frcm outsiders and is termed the Gviard role.
The sentry jmd guard rules help to define the permeability of the group
Figure
boundary.
2
illustrates these roles.
This conceptualization of boundary activities
discussed
those
to
for
He mentions
(1980).
acquisition
organizational
five
classes
organizational
of
boundary
inputs
spanners
activities:
of
and
by Adams
transacting
disposal
the
similar
some^vhat
is
of
the
outputs,
filtering inputs and outputs, searching for and collecting information,
representing the organization and buffering
At
pressure.
fluid
than
the group
level,
it
frcm external threat and
these activities are likely to be more
described by Adams.
In
a
group,
as
opposed
to
organizational boundary imit (e.g., admissions offices, etc.), there
an
is
likely to be a more diverse set of external environments with which to
interact, a more general task and fewer formal procedures governing the
criteria that
Also,
the
These
factors
determine when to accept
group must manage
suggest
that
or
reject
within
interactions
boundary
inputs
spanning
the
in
and outputs.
organization.
groups
is
less
bureaucrat i zed than in organizations and that the group nust set rules
as
it
goes along or give
the boundary
spanner more
leeway
in
making
decisions.
Given the nature of the new product team's task and the dependence
of
such groups on others within the organization,
should be inportant elements of the team's process.
this
was
supported
by
our
interviews.
All
of
boimdary activities
Not surprisingly,
our
interviewees
discussed the iniportance of managing relationships with other groups as
critical
to
the
product
developnent
13
process.
Further,
the
boundary
activities
described
interviewees
the
In
distinctions described above.
the
fit
with
well
sections which
the
theoretical
follow,
we will
draw from the interviews to nsre fully illustrate the roles.
Scout
We described activities involving bringing infommtion or
.
resources needed by the group in across the boundary as the Scout role.
Exanples
task-relevant
data
supports
demand
of
information
information
who
about
extent
kind of
the
of
for
necessary
opposes
or
the
group's
the
scout might
for
problan solution,
the
group's
the scout procures other resources,
information,
training necessary for group functioning,
given easily
is
it
^en
the scout who must gather
team can negotiate to procure them.
well
as
include
political
activities,
As
outputs.
collect
and
the
collecting
such as equipnent and
these resources are not
intelligence so that
the
Exanples of the scout role can be
seen in the following remarks made by interviewees:
"I
came back to the group once
meeting...! got the news and went
'letters from heme'.*
would go around to the other
There was a great deal of
and this way I could meike sure
well enough in advance so that
"I
on.
on
t
ime
per
back
week
to
for
a
staff
my team with
groups to see what was going
coordination to take care of
that coiponents were ordered
we could get the product out
"
.
She's very sensitive and works
"We have a kind of detector.
She
with the people interfaces not the technical part.
spends time with all the groups in manufacturing to detect
problems so they can be dealt with quickly."
Ainbassador.
The aol^assador role involves representing the groups
to outsiders and carrying information,
the group chooses to transmit
representation
the group
is
(Asians,
resources, or other outputs that
to others.
to shape the beliefs and
1976,
1980).
Much of the purpose of this
behaviors of others, outside
The anisassador develops and maintains
14
channels of ccomin i ca t i on in order to explain the group's activities to
powerful
outsiders
and
persuade
to
outsiders
these
activities are valuable and should be supported.
that
the
group's
These functions n»y
involve getting others to comnit themselves to, or share the goals of,
the
group
(Kanter,
Kotter,
1983;
1982).
The
following
quotations
illustrate the aniiassador role:
"After a few weeks we had a design review with all of R & D.
We just wanted to make sure that we weren't going off in
crazy directions."
"Then we started having meetings with all those people
outside the group.
There were representatives from
purchasing, manufacturing, production planning, the
diagnostics group, marketing, everyone.
This was an
opportunity to give information and hear about new business.
Everyone was informed about progress and changes.
The
minutes were typed on line so that the team and those who
weren't at the meeting knew what was going on.
The top
management group also got copies."
down
where the project first hits and tell 'em
I
down.
say that four things are coming, and
this is the most critical.
You can't always say rush, rush,
I
rush.
stop in even when there's nothing urgent, to develop
a relationship with those people.
I
send them minutes of our
meetings and when the project gets closer I send them memos
explaining what's required and asking what they need fron
us."
"I
go
to
^at's ccming
"I'm like a cheerleader, trying to get those guys excited
But I tickle our group too; I'm not
about our products.
going to carry over some half-baked ideas.
They'd get tired
of that real quickly."
Sent ry
.
The
sentry polices
information and resources
group.
external
agents want
controlling
to
send
into
the
the
Acting as a filter, the sentry decides who can give input, how
nuch of that
stop.
that
boundary by
the
The
input will be admitted,
sentry
protects
minimal distraction.
priorities,
interests,
the
and when the flow of
group by
allowing
to
it
input mist
work with
Often external entities try to ccramnicate their
and daoands.
15
When this
input
is
desired,
the
"
inputs are not desired,
1967).
(e.g., Thcxx^son,
tensions,
political
buffering
the
is
for
on
behalf
An extreme
group.
the
of
group with the optimal
the
Lrnprove decision
and
the group
to buffer
is
The sentry absorbs external pressures, such as
that
the
to be
amount
of
For exanple,
effective decision making.
1983)
the sentry
job of
This buffering or sentry function
that when action needs
not
the
information and other
form of
to actually separate the group physically fron the rest of
organization.
providing
V?hen this
to allow entry.
the sentry is
job of
evidence
information
of
O'Reilly,
1985;
outweigh
can
indicates
information do
levels of
making (c.f., Gladstein & Quinn,
costs
in
infonnation necessary
seme
increased
taken
important
is
benefits.
its
Exanples of the sentry role are expressed as follows:
"We needed to get input from engineering at the beginning.
We didn't want to ccme up with seme kind of Dr. Seuss machine
that had to be redesigned later so we let the engineering
people in."
I
the end I talked to the top management group a lot.
tried to protect the group from that kind of pressure though.
It's like Tom West said, we won't pass on the garbage and the
"T^ear
pol
i
tics.
External entities may be curious about group activities or
Guard.
attenyt
role
'
involves monitoring
request
information
the
to
those danands.
judgment
to
determine
infonration out
equipnent
of
and be
the
if
group.
denied,
is
in
Ctae
the
is
external
agent
request
others
release in
reactive and
group's best
while another's
that
the group will
The guard role
it
resources
and
from the group and determining what
response
The guard
infommtion from the group.
resources or
to obtain
interest
requires
to
may request
is
let
some
granted because
that group has provided sonething more valuable to the group in return.
Examples of the guard role can be seen in the following:
16
"So we set up living quarters axid moved the team away. That
People kept coming
kind of intensity needed to be isolated.
Mhat are you up to now?'
over and saying, How's it going?
This was at best distracting, at worst like being in a
pressure cooker.*
"Near the end people started panicking.
The top guys would
I
come down and want to know if we were making progress.
told them they had to stop, that they were having a
distracting and deleterious effect on the group.'"
conceptually and,
Both
as
interviews
our
inter-related.
boundary roles are
For
support,
practice,
in
example,
the
scout
and
sentry roles both deal with information that ccmes into the group.
As
these
both
such,
world,
because
inputs
external
group member
influence
roles
likely to
they are
perceptions
consolidate,
filter,
thereby distorting than in
prone to the "nun" effect
the processing of
(Zander,
of
scene
outside
the
and
interpret
They are also
way.
1977) and other selective biases in
information (c.f., O'Reilly,
Similarly,
1983).
the
ani^assador and guard roles influence how external entities perceive the
These roles define what
group.
said
those outside
to
four roles represent
the
said and the manner
is
Collectively,
group.
in
which
the activities
it
is
these
serve to define both how the group perceives the
external environment and how other actors perceive the group itself.
The
roles
identified
elsewhere as
organizations.
here
described
coniplement
important
to
the
those
that
been
have
innovation process
Roberts and Fusfeld (1983) argue that gatekeeping,
in
idea
generating, chanpioning, project leading and coaching are necessary for
successful
innovation.
The
scout
role
in
our model
goes
beyond
gatekeeping by procuring resources and bringing in political as well as
technical
detail
information.
The
category
to the chanpioning and project
scheme
we
have
described
adds
leading roles by specifying those
boundary activities that will aid in recognition of a new product idea
17
,
(
chan^ i on i ng
and integrating and coordinating the diverse tasks needed
)
to develop the product
The product champion
(project leading).
a skilled ani>assador v^ile the project
leader nust
simultaneously play the role of scout,
niist be
integrate and often
isxbassador,
sentry and guard.
Finally, our role set stress the team's proactive role in getting and
maintaining the support of the coach.
In describing boundary management
in
their new product teams, our
interviewees indicated that the various boundary roles can be taken on
by one individual or by many different people.
As well, a sequence of
boimdary activities may contain elements of more than one role.
example,
the
group
leader may
assine
boundary activities
all
specific person assigned to interact with separate groups.
combined,
be
scouting
role or
when
one
is
in
Similarly,
the
position of
one
or
a
Roles may
acnbassador
individual may play a
may be broadly dispersed, when for exanple, the leader may
group menijer
each
ask
that
also carried out.
is
it
so
For
to
play
the
role
of
guard
to
keep
certain
information secret.
Boundary Managanent-Perfoxmance Kelatiooships
in
New Product Teams
The success of a new product team can be defined by a product that
is
delivered on time, on budget, at specification, and that
and is a narket success
effective
and
type
(Mansfield & Wagner,
boundary managenaent
of
boundary
,
activity,
teams
success.
is
one
of
to
suggest
the criticality of boundary spanning roles
that
18
the
the
that
amount
factors
More specifically, we
contributing
a
produced
We predict
overseeing and controlling
spanning
new product
1972).
is
varies across
the
segments
of
deve 1 opnen t
new product
the
process.
Basically we
propse that the scout and airbassador roles are more critical than other
boundary
roles
creation
the
in
of
the
requires many boundary
task
process because the
segnent
product
developnent
tansactions.
During
the developnent segment, we would argue that the sentry and guard roles
are mare criticla tham the others due to a need to reduce the boundary
peiraeabi
1 i
The diffusion segment should require proportional ly more
ty.
atdsassador
due
activity
to
increased
an
need
for
boundary
cross
transact ions.
In the first
predict
that
the
segment of the product developnent process, we would
scout
other boundary roles.
segment
creation
groups
them,
who will
external
their
environment,
necessary.
In
are more
process
In order
1977).
top management,
addition to technical
it
and
other
than
during the
is
effective
that
oust
collect
infonoation (Kanter,
to develop
feasibility,
econcmic
critical
form the group)
later
technical, emd political
1969; Tushraan,
evaluate
jmd
roles
developnent
product
the
of
large amounts of market,
1983; Maquis,
ambassador
Our interviewees suggested that
individuals
(or
and
ideas, screen
information
functional
fron the
areas
is
and market based activities,
an
under stsmding of the corporate tradition and managefoent thinking may be
needed to know whether the product might be included in the corporate
strategy (Burgelnsin, 1983).
role
of
process,
the
scout.
gaining
During
Collecting this information represents the
se^nent
this
top management
support
of
and
interdependent groups may also be crucial.
internal
corporate
venturing
describes
demonstrate that what conventional
the
the
product
cooperation of other
Burgelman,
this
development
as
in his
study of
"...necessary
to
corporate wisdom had classified as
19
.
in^ssible vas,
in
fact,
possible"
infommlly obtaining resources
early market
creating
managenKnt
This nay require
232).
p.
dononstrate product
to
interest
product
the
in
feasibility
even before
or
top
ccnmitted to the product's develojxnent
is
When
(1983,
the
primary
task
of
group
a
gather
to
is
infonoat ion,
resources or expertise outside the group, we hypothesize that effective
increase those activities related to scouting.
groups will
resources the group
upon what
increased scouting activities
requires,
may be directed toward a variety of outside groups
When cooperation
from others
group's outputs, we predict
needed
is
that
in
Depending
(Pfeffer,
future acceptance
for
effective groups,
start early in the group's existence to
the
1985).
the
of
scout will
identify areas of support and
opposition to the team's efforts.
At this stage,
those activities making up the arrfcassador role are
The anliassador uses
predicted to be high in effective groups as well.
the
information
from the scout, working to maintain the support
those who have given
and trying
it
who oppose the groups 's
obtain
to
whose support
plains but
it
from
frcm key
individuals
needed.
Cooperation
is
and support are built early, emd those who agree to cooperate are kept
informed
group's
outside
Once
group progress.
of
output,
support
need
they
and
to
these groups
updated
be
cooperation
the antassador
beginning of
performing
performs.
the group's
teams
will
This
existence.
continue
to
activity, but its form may change.
20
is
when
Thus,
not
the
in
present,
we
increase the amount of selling
particularly inportaiit at
Once support
need
stake
progress.
necessary but
are
predict that high performing teams will
that
on
have a
a
fair
is
amount
obtained,
of
the
high-
anl>assador
The
literature
on
group behavior would
suggest
that
it
is
important that this role develop early in the team's existence and data
frcm our
support
interviews
Friedlander and Scott
contention.
this
found that work group activities were give naore
(1981)
legitimization
and were more likely to be in^jlemented when there was a back and forth
flow of
with
ideas
top management.
information channel
is
established, over time
other unrelated purposes
are given
effective
were
for
the
aiil>assadors
Descriptions
groups.
(March & Simon,
tends
it
1958)
work
or
to be used
for
once
outsiders who
that
so
a
information early in the team's developnent may reciprocate
assistance
with
addition,
In
unlike
not
worked
of
those
Our
team.
interviewees
build
to
informal
processes
the
suggested
channels
they imdertook
requirements
with other
doing
in
voluntary
for
that
this
coordination
identified by Whet ten (1983).
h3rpothesize
other
second
the
In
that
segment
of
sentry
and
the
boundary roles.
partial
isolation of
the
It
is
team
product
the
guard
the
most
is
process,
we
are more
critical
than
development
segment,
when
roles
during
developnent
inportant,
that
the
team rtust
specify the new product design well enough to set goals and schedules
for
the
agents
design
team.
In
regarding
need
to
be
radically changes).
order
their
halted
This
for
this
to
priorities
be
and
(imless market
is
the
sentry
done,
inputs
suggestions
or
frcm external
for
coopetitive
function.
the
product
information
We would predict
that the more effective teams will be the ones that are able to get the
inputs
they need and then to consolidate this
to develojinent
taking
in
of
.
information and move on
Groups which are not able to effectively manage this
information and then using
21
it
may lose valuable time or
,
suffer
Groups
reduced effectiveness.
continue
that
incorporate
to
outside inputs may continually change work goals and schedules so that
group
manager put
to
and motivation may
progress
new product
one
team
"They just couldn't decide which chip they were going
it,
It
use.
As
suffer.
was
debated and changed and debated until
the cost
and
We had to scrap the whole thing and nest
delivery got out of control.
of that team left the company."
The sentry mist protect the group from this sort of input overload
The team needs to spend
by naking the group boundary less permeable.
its
time on technical development;
transfonn the
must
speed
inputs
be gained by having
can
interference
external
1984; Galbraith,
guard
The
into
at
finished
a
1982; Rogers,
1982).
also buffers
the
effectively,
propose
that
suggested
interviewees
Our
it
cannot
the more
product.
Innovation
While
team.
how much progress has been made,
finished.
that
organizational
developnent phase external agents will want
doing,
this point
sentry serve as
the
inpOsed
and
is
it
to
know
if
group
important
the
team's
is
the
in
is
product will be
the
team
interrupted constantly.
be
against
the group
vrtiat
the
and
(Friedlander
norms
or v^en
that
buffer
a
the
the group
product,
is
to
work
Therefore,
and
we
the more
interruptions and requests for information and resources, the more the
guard
role
is
necessary.
In
addition,
teams
will
often be
in
conpetition for resources and will want product information in order to
ccfifjete
more successfully.
will manage
We hypothesize that high performing teams
their profile and
limit
guard role.
2Z
their
exposure to others via the
s
It
that although ne propose
to note
inportant
is
that
the sentry
and guard roles are most important in the second seg^nent of new product
developnent
the ani>assador and scout
,
crisis.
provide
guard
and
sentry
It
protection needed
the
meet
to
the
The
second
possible that the product will not be pushed ahead to
is
comnercia 1 zat ion
i
unless
Technical
development.
roles still are necessary.
team
the
expertise,
to
complete
information about carpeting groups
zmd resources
and top management support,
alone
left
is
in
the form of equifment and
personnel may also be needed to meet the demands at this second crisis
The
point.
activities
scout
takes
on
these
continue
in
order
to
ccnmitments to the product
latter
the
roles
two
are
while
activities,
garner
the
annbassador
'
and maintain others'
support
Nonetheless, we would postulate that
idea.
required
less
during
this
second segment of
act ivi ty.
In
the
hypothesize
final
that
boundary roles.
convey
segment
technical
is
during
data as well
critical
that
it
in
this endeavor.
may be necessary
ambassador activities.
role
as
is
a
developoent
more
transfer
the
that will manufacture and market
is
product
the
aniassador
the
It
of
that
sense of
most
ownership
other
the
to
the
groups
The annbassador role
tremsition
group members
The transfer of ownership of
may be difficult for the team.
than
we
effective teams mist
the new product.
The breadth of
for
critical
process,
is
such
to
assme some
the
new product
The nature of the second segnent of the
developnent process may have caused the team to have developed a very
inpermeable boundary.
Although the isolation this boundary creates may
be inportant in innovation,
its existence and the cohesiveness that has
23
developed nay beccme detrimental at
We propose that the
stage.
this
potential of this occurring makes the an±)assador role critical.
Overall, we hypothesize that the critical ity of the boundary roles
change depending upon
the product
Koroleva
particular
studied
(1984)
this hypothesis
for
Ryssina and
institutes.
relationship between roles and
the
slightly different
examining
Although
perfonrance.
support
research
engineering
study of
required at each phase of
tasks
General
developnent process.
fron a
cases
the
teenn
their
roles,
findings support role differentiation and active management of boundary
activity.
closer
their
In
scientific
leader
focused
and
were
scout)
(like
then the teams
the
contacts,
were
factors
two
better
associated with
cooperation
and
increased
The research indicated that the generator of ideas and
effectiveness.
gatekeeper
these
study,
primary
of
inward with
in
early phases,
activity falling on
the burden of
Finally,
specialist.
technique
research
in^rtance
the
leader,
specialist and interface mtmager become most important.
Team Kfcnagonent and Fntare Research
Iiqplicmtioas for
An improved understanding of conplex groups such as new product
teams nay have
more inportant
We have
inapl
ly,
icat ions
increasing
identified
The scout,
activities.
for
inproving the managonent of teams and
said
improving research on groups.
four
roles which
myriad transactions with
the
external
always be taken on automatically.
this paper
assign
is
these
perfonmnce
sentry,
aniassador,
If
to
group members
in these roles.
Role performance
24
boundary
the
Roles will
not
support
and
these
and guard acconplish
environment.
forthcoming, we would suggest
roles
enccrnpass
for
that
the propositions
the
evaluate
is
in
team leader niist
them on
their
also influenced by the
organizational
organizational
The
context.
and
reward
control
team leader must work
mechanisms
encourage
to
and
make
reward
effective role behavior.
The propositions presented here have in^lications for research as
First
as managonent.
well
foremost
and
the paper
teams within their organizational context
recognition
groups
that
Also inherent
processes.
internal
as well as
levels
This broad perspective
lines.
in
in
is
the propositions
time
and
is
their
the hierarchy and across
needed to understand nx>re
that may be necessary to meet
of the group behaviors
studying
to examine boundary
should be monitored over
interactions monitored both across
functional
in order
advocates
the task demands
of ccrplex interdependent tasks like new product developnent.
Much of the current literature on group functioning suggests that
team leaders
spend their time
fostering good internal group processes
such as effective decision making and problem solving,
support iveness
and
1977).
trust,
Argyris,
(e.g.,
these processes are clearly
1966;
Dyer,
iitportant
in
outlines other areas of group process.
leaders
the
of
all
groups
that
are
1977;
Zander,
team managonent,
While
paper
this
New product team leaders, and
interdependent
with external
entities, must successful ly manage a conplex set of boundary activities
as well
if
N4ich
the group is to meet
of
the
current group
its goals.
literature uses cross
sectional
data.
Those researchers who have taken a developnental approach have focused
on
the
will
1973).
resolution of
leadership
two major
emerge
and
issues:
authority and
how close will
we
became?)
intimacy
(c.f.
(How
Hare,
Development has been modeled as a sequetnial process shuch as:
25
develops as group merdjers confron issues of authority;
3)
mmi jers agree
on nonrs and rules; and 4) work leads to ccmpletion of the task (Heinen
& Jacobsen,
This
1976).
in behavior
changes
interpersonal
internal
concentrates
development
view of
seen
over
groups
in
on
the
time.
Our findings support the developnental approach but indicate a need to
evolution
the
on
focus
process
raises
also
research
This
follow shifts
sec[uence.
of
boundary asa well
question
the
processes.
internal
whether
rather
task demands
in
of
as
in
group
than an universal
stage
changes
Future research will have to address this issue.
Beyond the identification of boundary roles related to the product
the data
developiKnt process,
inplication
an additional
about
from our interviews lead us to speculate
effects of a group's
for
that
research,
are
what
is,
the
processes on the nature of its boundary
internal
relat ions.
The Interaction of Internal and External Group Processes
An area worth seme speculation
the
group
influence
transactions
two
least
(c.f. Gladstein,
processes were
to
the
the
how the
permeability of
the
1984).
processes
internal
is
developnent
the
processes of
internal
boundary and boundary
Our interviews suggested that at
influenced boundary activities.
and majiagement of inenfcers'
These
coranitments
team and product and the management of the stream of decisions
involved in developing the new product.
\fanaging Carmitraent
.
Our
interviews suggested that nanaging the
creation, maintenance and control of
the
project
is
inportant
in
shaping
the
teaiiB
both
the
product team with other groups and the overall
development
process.
The
new product
26
members'
relations
coranitment
of
the
to
new
success of the product
developnent
process
has many
and
unforeseen demands and pressures
as
one manager
we
interviewed
"there isn't one project that hasn't gone through a stage where
stated,
the morbers
thought
failed
they had
—
^ere
they thought
it
couldn't
be done.*
Despite this, exanples abound of teams expending tronendous
effort
the
in
interviewees
our
apparent
face of
recounted
failure
(c.f. Kidder,
of marathon
stories
work
1981).
Kfeny
of
willingly
days,
forgone vacations, amd intense effort toward the developnent of the new
product.
It
the
to
1979)
may be,
becoming
that
new product
is
"fanatically
often necessary for
conmitted"
(Quinn,
team success
the
in
face of perceived failure.
Conxnitment
may be
paradoxical
ccnmitiQent may be very motivating
for
team menisers,
individuals beconae bound by their previous actions
they become comnitted
an
to
unsuccessful
in
having
or
"too n»ich
entrapping
conni tment
strategies
or
ccnmitment
lead
lead
to
limit
may prevent
team to
the
individuals
(Caldwell & O'Reilly,
1984).
the new product
For
comni tment
exanqjle,
penneable
activities
a
distort
to
quit"
such a way that
of
(Rubin & Brockner,
(Teger,
Such
1980).
team frcm abandoning
poor
new
information.
Similarly,
or
manipulate
information
All of these negative outccraes may serve
it
may have
to
exchange
information with
may be dependent.
implications
exhibiting
than necessary.
the
ignore
"fanatically"
boundary by
to
team's ability
those other groups upon which
Thus,
invested
may also have
This process
strategy.
escalating ccmni tment has been termed "entrapnent"
1975)
it
intense
1982) has described how
Recent research (c.f. Staw,
negative effects.
Although
however.
for
boundary behaviors.
conmitted group may develop a
higher
Similarly,
27
levels
of
sentry
and
less
guard
the comni tment may distort
the
boundary transactions such that the group concentrates on exporting its
the
the paradox of
is
Wiile "fanatical" camutment may be necessary to conplete
ccrnnitment.
a project,
This then
in^orting new information.
views without
such ccnmitment may make
the existance of
group
work with
to
others
or
it
difficult
ultimately give
to
over
for
the
"ownership" of the project to others.
Increasing amounts of
research have identified how the processes
by which individuals undertaJ^e an action may lead to coranitment
(c.f.
O'Reilly & Caldwell, 1981; Salancik, 1977) and how such coranitment may
be maintained
future research
analysis,
organizations
in
is
the managanent
including
its
Pfeffer,
(c.f.
ccnmitment at
of
implications
One area
1981).
the group level
internal
for
and
for
of
boundary
processes.
Managing the Decision Making Process
that
is
likely
outside groups
to
is
influence
As others have noted
group
and
processes.
(c.f.
decisions
the
1982),
makes
internal
the
can
influence
Our interviewees suggested that the
team had the potential
by the product
interactions with
decision making within the team.
the
Janis,
it
team's
product
the
nature of
the
A second internal process
.
to
^y
process of
external
the
group
decisions were made
influence the way the group
managed its boundary.
In order
management
to understand how decision making can
new product
in
understanding of
two
models
rationality.
of
"why"
teams,
it
is
useful
decisions are made.
decision
decision making;
influence boundary
to
Brunsson
begin with
(1982)
an
compares
rationality and action
Decision rationality corresponds to most no rma t ive models
of decision making whereby the goal
28
of decision making
is
to meike
the
Processes
decision.
"best"
as
collecting
sets
of
alternatives,
complete
specifying
information,
such
and
requires avoiding
(Janis,
1982)
irrational
such
rigid responses to threat
or
ranking
Making "good"
alternatives in terms of expected values are called for.
decisions
available
all
processes as group
think
Sandelands & Dutton,
(Staw,
1981).
frcm decision rationality in that the
Action rationality differs
aim may not be
but
their
The
done
input
issue
one
less
should be
group effectiveness
of
and more
done)
one
(Pfeffer & Salancik,
building of
implies
decision making process
the
in
that
as
so
gain
to
molding the decision and build their comnitment to
in
is
carried out
the
people
involve
to
the "best" decision in scRie abstract sense,
to arrive at
cormitment
as
how the decision
of
primary criterion
will
being
is
best
can
be
Since action rationality has
1978).
a
few alternatives
(whether v^iat
it.
analyzed,
be
success,
for
a
this
narrow range
of
potential consequences should be used to choose among the alternatives,
and
implementation
process
(Brunsson,
decision
of
all
normally avoided because
Our
interviews
pros
it
1984).
rationality
action
the
throughout
dominant
Gladstein & Quinn,
1982;
rationality,
consideration
should be
issues
and
cons
of
In
the
contrast
suggests
niiltiple
entire
that
alternatives
to
the
is
could evoke dysfunctional imcertainty.
that
suggest
a
team operating
under
decision
rationality exhibits a more permeable boundary that one operatin imder
action rationality.
Those teams using a decision rationality approach
displayed an openness for new information.
to move
outside
information on
the boundary
their
pros
to generate
and
cons.
29
Team meni)ers seemed ready
new alternatives and obtain
Teams
operating
imder
action
rationality often wanted to accelerate the decsion oaking process and
seoiKd
inclined
less
seek new
to
inforamtion which might
inpede
the
decsion making process.
SmDOBTy
First,
These conclusions have inplications in two general areas.
they suggest
products
that
of
function of
a
is
part
the
success
the extent
in
effectively developing new
the product develojment
to which
team is able to manage its relationships with other groups.
internal
Second,
this
activities
and
research.
Whereas
maintenence
functioning:
processes may have
relationship needs
group
activities,
has
research
our
work
boundary management.
30
to
an
impact
be
examined
typically
suggest
a
looked
third
on
at
area
boundary
in
future
task
of
and
group
I
1
3
iK
s
S6
a.
s
f * •
BEFERENOES
"The Structure and Dynamics of Behavior in Organizational
AdaoB, J.S.
Handbook of Industrial
In M-D. Dunnette (ed.).
Boundary Roles."
and Organizational Psychology ." Chicago: RandMd^ally, 1976.
Adams, J.S.
"Interorganizat ional Processes and Organization Boundary
2 (1980):
Activities."
In Research in Organizational Behavior
321-355.
,
"Time Lag in New Product
Adler, L.
Market ing January 1966, 17-21.
Development."
Journal
of
,
In
"Boimdary Relations and Organizational Diagnosis."
Behavior
Edited by M.
pp. 109-133.
Springfield, IL: Charles Thonas, 1976.
Alderfer, C.P.
Hxinanizing Organizational
Meltzer and F.R. Wickert.
,
"Boimdary Spaiming Roles and Organization
Aldrich, H. and Herker, D.
217-230.
In Academy of Management Review 2 (1977):
Structure."
Technology Transfer and
Allen, T.J. Managing the Flow of Technology;
the Di ssgninat ion of Technological Information Within the
Cambridge, M\: The M.I.T. Press, 1984.
Organization
R&D
.
Harvard
"Interpersonal Barriers to Decision Making."
C.
84-97.
Business Review 44 (1966):
Argyris,
"Marketing as Exchange."
Bagozzi, R.P.
No. 4, (October 1975): 32-39.
Journal of Marketing
,
Vol. 39,
Organizational innovation:
Individual,
Baldridge, J. & Burnham, R.
organizational, and environmental inpacts. Administrative Science
Quarterly 1975, 20, 165-176.
,
Booz,
"New Products
Inc.
1982.
In Business Engineering
Allen and Hamilton,
1980s."
Msmagement
for
the
,
"A Resource Exchange Theory Analysis of
Brinberg, D. and Wood, R.
Consimer Behavior." Journal of Consimer Research Vol. 10, No. 3,
330-338.
(Deceifcer 1983):
,
"The irrationality of action and action
Brunsson, N.
Decisions, ideologies and organization actions."
Management Studies 1982, 29-44.
rationality:
Journal of
,
"A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in
Burgelman, R.A.
In Administrative Science Quarterly
the Diversified Major Firm."
,
1983.
Strategy,
Inside Corporate Innovation:
Burgelman, R. & Sayles, L.
Structure, and Manager ial Skills. New York: Free Press, 1986.
31
t
"Boundary Spanning and Individual
D. & O'Reilly, C.
Journal of Applied
The Impact of Self Monitoring.*
Performance:
Psychology 1982, 67, 124-127.
Caldwell,
,
"Responses to Failure:
Caldwell, D. & O'Reilly, C.
The Effects and
Choice and Responsibility on Impression N^nagement."
Academy of
Management Journal
1982, 25, 121-136.
,
Child,
J.
"Organizational Structure, Environment, and Perfonnance:
The Role of Strategic Choice." Sociology 1972, 6, 1-22.
,
Cohen, W. & Mowery, D.
Firm heterogeneity and R&D:
An agenda for
research.
In Barry Bozeman, Michael Crow and Albert Link (eds.)
Strategic Management of Industrial R&D
Lexington, MA:
Lexington, 1984.
.
F. & Evan, W.
Orgamizat ional innovation and performance:
The problem of "organizational lag."
Administrative Science
Quarterly 1984, 24, 342-409.
Damenpour,
,
David, E.
Trends in B&D.
Drucker, P.
The discipline of
innovation.
,
June,
1984.
Harvard Business Review
,
1985, 67-72.
Nfey-June,
Dyer,
Research and Deve 1 opnen
W.G.
Team Building;
Issues and Alternatives
Add i son-Wesley Publishing Qnpany, 1977.
.
Reading,
M\.:
Flesher,
D.L.
Dec i s i on
Flesher, T.K. and Skelly, G.U.
The New-Product
New York, NY: National Association of Accountants and
Hamilton, Ontario:
The Society of Management Accountants of
.
Canada, 1984.
F.
"The Ecology of Work Groups," to be published in The
Handbook of Organizational Behavior
Jay Lorsch, General Editor,
Prentice-Hall, 1984.
Friedljuider
,
.
Friedlander,
F. and Scott, B.
"The Use of Work Groups for
Organizational Change."
In Groups at Work , ed.
C. Cooper and R.
Payne (New York: Wiley, 1981).
Frohman, A.L.
"The Performance of Innovation:
Nknagerial Roles."
5-12.
California Management Review Vol. XX, No. 3 (Spring 1978):
Fombrum,
C.
Tichy, N.
Nfanagement New York:
,
,
Galbraith, J.
Dynamics
,
Devana
M.
Strategic
John Wiley, 1984.
Human Resource
,
"Designing and Innovating Organization."
,
1982,
16,
Organ izat ional
5-26.
Gladstein,
D,
"Groups in Context:
A Model of Task
Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 1984, 29,
499-517.
,
32
Group
"
Gladstein,
D.
"Adaption to the External Environment;
Group
Developnent in the Organizational Context." Working Paper, Sloan
School, M.I.T., 1986.
Gladstein,
D.
and Quinn,
Decision Making."
Decision Making
.
J.B.
"Janis Sources of Error in Strategic
To appear in H. Pennings (ed.)
Strategic
San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers,
1985.
Goodman,
P.
Task, technology and group performance.
In P.
(ed.)
Designing Effective Work Groups .
San Francisco:
Bass, 1986.
Hare,
Paul A.
"Theories
Interaction Analysis."
Z59-303, August 1973.
of
Group Development
Small Group Behavior
.
Goodman
Jossey-
zmd Categories for
Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.
Heinen, J. Stephen and Jacobson, Eugene.
"A Model of Task Group
Development in Complex Organizations and a Strategy of
Inplementat ion.
Academy of Management Review October 1976, pp.
,
98-111.
Herold,
D.
The effectiveness of work groups.
Orgzinizat ional Behavior .
Colxrrbus, Ohio: Grid,
Holt.
Kerr
In S.
1979.
"Information and Needs Analysis in Idea Generation."
Managengnt 1975, 18, 24-27.
(ed.)
Research
,
Janis,
Grroupthink (2nd edition).
I.
Boston:
Houghton^vlif f 1 in,
1982.
Kahn, R.L. Wolfe, D.M.
Quinn, R.P.
Snoek, J.D.
and Rosenthal, R.A.
Organizational Stress:
Studies in Role Conflict and An±)iguity .
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964.
;
Kanter, R.M.
,
;
;
The Changemasters (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1983).
Katz, R.
"The Effects of Group Longevity on Project Comuunicat ion andd
Performance." Administrative Science Quarterly (1982) 81-104.
"Boundary Spanning Roles in a Research and
Keller, R. and Holland, W.
An Enyirical Investigation."
Development Organization:
Academy
of Management Journal
1975, 18, 388-313.
,
Kidder, T.
The Soul of a New Machine
.
Little Brown
eind
Kotter,
Ccmpsuij,
J.
"What Effective General Managers Really Do."
Business Review 1982, 60, 156-167.
1981.
Harvard
,
"Organizational and Strategic Factors
E. and Wagner, S.
Associated with Probabilities of Success in Industrial R&D." In
The Journal of Business
179-198.
(1972):
Ivfensfield,
,
Maquis, D.G.
"A Project Team Plus PERT Equals Success.
In Innovation
1, 3, (July, 1969).
,
33
Or Does It?"
N4arch,
J.G. and Simon, H.A.
Martin, J. & Siehl, C.
uneasy s^rabiosis.
Organ izat ions
.
New York:
Wiley, 1958.
Organizational culture and counterculture: An
Organizational Dynamics Autimn, 1983, 52-64.
,
Mclntyre, S.H. & Statman, M.
"Managing the Risk of New Product
Development."
In Business Horizons
(May-June, 1982):
51-55.
,
O'Reilly, C.
"The Use of Information in Organization Decision Making:
and Some Propositions."
In L. Cuimings and B. Staw
(eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior
(Vol. 5), Greenwich,
Conn:
JAL Press, 1983.
A Model
,
O'Reilly,
C. & Caldwell, D.
The ccranitment jmd job tenure of new
en^jloyees:
Scrae evidence of post-deci s i onal
justification.
Administrative Science Quarterly 1981, 26, 597-616.
,
O'Reilly, C. & Caldwell, D.
"Work Group Dei»graphy, Social
Integration, and Turnover . " Working Paper, School of
University of California, Berkeley, 1986.
Business,
O'Reilly, C. &Flatt, S.
"Execut ive Team Demography,
Organizational
Innovation, and Firm Per formeince. " Working Paper,
School of
Business, University of California, Berkeley, 1986.
Organ, D. and Greene, C.
"Role Arcbiguity, Locus of Control and Work
Satisfaction." Journal of Applied Psychology 1974, 59, 101-102.
,
Pessemier, Product Management;
John Wiley, 1977.
Strategy and Organization
.
New York:
Pfeffer, J.
A resource dependence perspective on intercorporate
relations.
In M. Mizruchi & M. Schwartz (eds.)
Structural
Analysis of Business
New York: Academic Press, 1985.
.
Pfeffer, J.
Management as symbolic action:
maintenance of organizational paradigms.
In
(eds.)
Research in Organizational
Conn:
JAI Press, 1981.
creation and
The
L. Cumnings & B. Staw
Behavior (Vol. 3) Greenwich,
Pfeffer, J. & Sa l ancik^ G.
The External Control of Organizations: A
Resource Dependence Perspective
New York: Harper & Row, 1978.
.
Quinn, J.B.
Technical innovation, ent repreneurship
Sloan Management Review , Spring, 1979.
Quinn, J.B.
"Managing Strategies Incrementally."
and
Qmga
strategy.
(1982):
613-
627.
Quinn,
J.B. & Mueller, J. A.
"Transferring Research Results to
Operations."
In Harvard Business Review (January-February, 1963):
49-87.
34
Roberts, E.B. and Fusfeld, A.R.
"Staffing the Innovative TechnologyBased Organization."
CHEMTECH;
The Innovators' Magazine (\fay
1983): 266-274.
Rogers, E.
Diffusion of Innovations
Gxipany, Inc., 1982.
Rubin,
New York:
.
Kfedvlillan Publishing
& Brckner,
J.
Factors affecting entrapnent in vsaiting
The rosencrantz and guildenstern effect.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 1975, 31, 1054-1063.
J.
situations:
,
Ryssina, V.N. and Koroleva, G.N.
"Role Structures and Creative
Potential of Working Teams." R&D Nfanagement 14, 4, 1984, 233-237.
Salancik, G. Ccmnitment and the control of organizational behavior and
In Barry Staw and Gerald Salancik (eds.)
belief.
New Direct ions
in Organizational Behavior
Chicago: St. Clair, 1977.
.
Counter forces to change:
6.
Escalation and ccxnnitment as
In P. Goodman (Ed.)
sources of administrative inflexibility.
ChaJige in Organizations
San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1982.
Staw,
.
B.
Sandelands, L. & Dutton J.
Threat-rigidity effects in
organizational behavior:
Anulti-level analysis. AAninistrat ive
Science Quarterly 1981, 26, 501-524.
Staw,
,
,
Teger, A.
Thcn^json,
Too Much Invested to Quit
,
1
New York:
In Action
Organizations
J.
Coipany
.
.
Pergamon Press, 1980.
New York:
McGraw-Hill Book
967.
Tichy,
N. and
Settings."
Fombrun,
"Network Analysis
C.
Huian Relations
,
Vol. 32, No. 11,
in Organizational
(1979): 923-966.
M.
"Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process."
AAninistrative Science Quarterly 22 (1977): 587-605.
Tushman
,
"Work Characteristics and Solounit Comnunica t on
Tushman, M.
Structure:
A Contingency Analysis."
AAninistrat ive Science
Quarterly 24 (1979): 82-98.
i
Von Hippel, E.A.
"Has a Custcxner Already Developed Your Next Product"?
63-74.
In Sloan Management Review (Winter, 1977):
^etten,
D.
"Interorg2mizat ional Relations." To appear in Handbook of
Organizational Behavior Jay Lorsch (Ed.), Prentice-Hall, 1983.
,
Zander,
A.
Groups At Work
Publishers.
.
San Francisco,
1977.
k253 087v.^
35
CA:
Jossey-Bass
H
:
R^^£tfl£^l)n.
^UQ 16
IHM
1991
^5^99^
Lib-26-67
TOflD ODM
53D
2Mt.