Dealing with organizational resistance during
the NPD process
The influence of political skill and framing activities to
increase teams’ problem-solving speed
Author: Lisanne Doedens MSc. Student number: 10548351
Master of Science Business Administration Track: Strategy
UvA – Amsterdam Business School Final version: 28 August 2015 Supervisor: P. van Neerijnen MSc. Co-reader: B. Lima MSc.
ii
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This document is written by Student Lisanne Doedens who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1 Introduction ... 1
1.2 Contribution and conceptual model ... 4
1.3 Outline ... 5
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES ... 6
2.1 New Product Development ... 6
2.2 New Product Development Teams ... 7
2.3 Team Performance: Problem-Solving Speed ... 9
2.4 Resistance ... 10
2.5 Framing ... 12
2.6 Political Skill ... 14
2.7 Conceptual model ... 16
3. DATA & METHOD ... 17
3.1 Sample and data collection ... 17
3.2 Measurement and reliability of constructs ... 17
3.2.1 Dependent variable ... 18
3.2.2 Independent variable ... 18
3.2.3 Moderator variables ... 19
3.2.4 Control variables effecting problem-solving speed ... 19
3.3 Validation ... 21
3.4 Common method bias ... 23
4. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ... 24
4.1 Descriptive ... 24
4.2 Testing hypotheses ... 24
4.2.1 Relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed ... 26
4.2.2 Moderating role of framing activities ... 27
4.2.3 Moderating role of political skill ... 28
4.2.4 Complete model ... 28
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 30
5.1 Discussion ... 30
5.2 Implications ... 33
5.2.1 Implications for theory ... 34
5.2.2 Implications for practice ... 35
5.3 Limitations and future research ... 36
5.4 Conclusion ... 37
REFERENCES ... 38
APENDIX A: TEAM MEMBER SURVEY ... 45
iv
ABSTRACT
This research investigates how managerial resistance influences the problem-solving speed of New Product Development (NPD) teams. Literature has shown teams’ problem-solving speed is of crucial importance during the NPD process. Simultaneously, several political tensions may improve or harm the performance of the NPD team. This study enriches the existing literature by investigating if both team leaders and team members are able to influence the expected negative consequences resistance of outsiders against the newly developed product has on teams’ problem-solving speed. Based on existing literature, both team members’ framing and team leaders’ political skill were expected to positively influence the problem-solving speed of the team. Based on a sample of 31 NPD teams of a Dutch high-tech corporation, evidence is found showing that managerial resistance decreases the problem-solving speed of NPD teams. Furthermore, this study proves that a well politically-skilled team leader diminishes the negative relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed. No empirical evidence has been found that product framing by team members is useful in reducing the negative effects resistance has on teams’ problem-solving speed.
Keywords: New Product Development, problem-solving speed, resistance, political skill,
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
The New Product Development (NPD) process “is among the essential processes for success, survival, and renewal of organizations, particularly for firms in either fast-paced or competitive markets” (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995). Product development is crucial given that new products are at the nexus of competition for several firms (Clark & Fujimoto, 1991). Different resources and multiple streams of knowledge from several departments of the organization conjoin within the NPD team. Especially for so-called ‘knowledge intensive firms’, the NPD process is essential. The ‘really new’ products are crucial to survive in the current fast-changing and dynamic business environment (Danneels, 2002). Firms increasingly rely on their NPD teams (Sarin, 2009) in their product development processes. Results and successes of NPD teams can be expressed in several ways. These can, for instance, take the shape of market performance in terms of sales, market share, and profits (Sethi et al., 2012), of schedule, cost, and product quality (Sheremata, 2000), of new product survival (Thieme et al., 2003) and of teams’ problem-solving competences (Atuahene-Gima & Wei, 2011). The latter one, which includes “competencies in finding, understanding, and solving problems” is “a key competitive weapon in successful product development” (Atuahene-Gima & Wei, 2011: 81), the more since to be able to survive and compete in dynamic markets, it is required to sustain a relatively high pace within in NPD and innovation (Chen & Reilly, 2010; Kessler et al., 2000).
During the NPD process, go/kill decisions and decisions about resource allocation are regularly made by gatekeepers, who are senior managers who hold the resources required to let the team develop the product (Cooper, 2008). A no-go decision will harm the product development since it will hinder the necessary product approval. This means that resistance against a go decision, which occurs beyond the reach of the team, will obstruct the entire NPD
2 process. To reduce time-to-market, resource allocation must be a top priority (Cooper et al., 2004). The resource allocation decisions tend be highly political in nature (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), the more since multiple projects must compete for the same resources. Resistance arises because innovation threatens existing organizational hierarchies and products (Smith, 2007), while we know resistance itself does not harm the overall performance of the team (Sethi et al., 2012). The effect of organizational resistance on teams’ problem-solving speed is unexplored. This thesis addresses that gap. The question posed is whether this resistance hinders the development speed of the team, and if so, how this resistance should be tackled.
There seem to be several tactics and skills available to address resistance. For one, to be effective, leaders need to be politically skilled (Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer, 1981, 2010), i.e. have the ability to influence others to achieve organizational goals (Ahearn et al., 2004). Research in a wide context shows that leaders with political skill influence team performance (Ahearn et al., 2004), obtain more resources for the team (House, 1995), and positively influence leadership effectiveness (Ewen et al., 2013). Team members, in turn, have their own tactics. The cross-functionality of the team provides a prodigious amount of information for the team (Burns and Stalker, 1961) and this information facilitates a large quantity of high-quality ideas, while simultaneously increasing adaptability and flexibility in problem solving (Allen, 1977; Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995). This ensures product definition is comprehensive and the information “reduces misunderstanding among team members, which in turn increases the speed and quality of problem solving” (Atuahene-Gima, 2003: 361). This suggests that in a situation of resistance, the team product must be redefined to further increase the problem-solving speed. Product definition which goes further than a mere description and links the product to existing products, is called ‘framing’ (Smith, 1995).
However, our understanding of whether team members are able to do so in the case of organizational resistance, is insufficient. While political skills have proven to positively
3 influence teams’ performance, no attention has been paid to more specific topics in the workplace (Treadway et al., 2013), such as the NPD context and problem-solving speed. Furthermore, as earlier argued, the relationship between resistance and problem solving speed has not yet been investigated. In response to the scholarly call for more research in the area of political behavior (Sethi et al., 2012), this study attempts to bridge this gap through investigating how organizational resistance influences teams’ problem-solving speed, and how both team members and team leaders can improve this interaction through respectively framing activities and political skills. This leads to the main question of this study:
To what extent can team members and team leaders through respectively framing activities and political skills improve the problem-solving speed of the team, in the case of resistance of outsiders against newly developed products?
Considerations of political behavior, such as political skill, resistance and framing activities, and the impact on the effectiveness on the team have received insufficient attention in academic research (Sethi et al., 2012), especially with regard to the product development speed of the team. Given that this political behavior may have negative effects on the NPD capacity of a project team, which may result in poorer organizational performance (Frost and Egri, 1991; Kanter, 1983), additional research on this topic is required. This study is mainly concerned with the influence of resistance within the organization on the problem-solving speed of the NPD team. This social-cultural aspect of the organization plays a significant role in the teams’ functioning.
4
1.2 Contribution and conceptual model
Literature has reported innovation failure rates of over 50% (Andrew & Sirkin, 2003; Sivadas & Dwyer, 2000). Since many newly developed products are rejected, further research on this subject is necessary (Ellen et al., 1991; Szmigin & Foxall, 1998). Resistance might function as a barrier to innovation, and may include external consumer resistance or internal organizational resistance (Sandberg & Aarikka-Stenroos, 2014). While this study is concerned with the organization itself and the functioning on the NPD team, the internal organizational resistance is the one investigated. While research proves the existence of resistance in the NPD process (Sethi et al., 2012), hardly any research has been conducted on this specific phenomenon. This currently lacking knowledge is the first contribution of this study as when organizations learn to raise teams’ problem-solving speed under conditions of resistance, they can create a competitive advantage. It is relevant to discover the ways in which to raise the problem-solving speed of the team, which is possible by establishing teams with certain competences or skills, so organizations can control this process.
Secondly, this study attempts to contribute to the understanding of how the political skills of the supervisor can positively influence problem-solving speed of the team. In previous research, no distinction was made between the members and the supervisor of the team. It is valuable to investigate whose skills or tactics have the greatest effect on the speed. Thirdly, in the rational reasoning about the best way in which to innovate, political and cultural pressures are often negated (Lavie, 2006). The responses to technological change may be negatively influenced due to these political pressures in terms of resistance. These processes are often neglected in the research on an organization’s resource reconfiguration and its innovative strength. Further research on the development of (complete) models of political behavior, and especially on the antecedents of political behavior in NPD teams is
5 necessary (Dyan et al., 2012) as political skills and tactics influence the product development speed of the team either in a positive or a negative manner.
The core subjects of this study are: teams’ problem-solving speed, and several types of organizational politics, namely the political skill of the supervisor of the team, the organizational resistance, and framing activities of team members, all applied to the NPD process. The corresponding conceptual model is depicted in figure 1 below.
1.3 Outline
This study is structured as follows. Chapter two includes an overview of the literature, the most relevant findings within the research field and the hypotheses for this study. Chapter three contains the methodology of this study and gives a description of the used data. Chapter four presents the obtained results, and this empirical part provides some results of data analysis and limitations. Chapter five at last contains a discussion, an elaboration of the contribution and significance of this study, and recommendations for further research. That chapter ends with a conclusion in which the main findings are summarized.
Resistance Problem-Solving Speed
Framing
Political Skill Figure 1. The conceptual model
6
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
A prodigious amount of research has been conducted on the influence of organizational structure and design on performance, innovation, and success. While the design of the organization is important, so is its internal functioning. This section elaborates on other aspects and processes that influence the functioning of the NPD team, and zooms in on the product development speed of the team. This chapter also describes the presumed relationship between the different variables of the conceptual model, as already depicted in chapter 1. This chapter is divided into multiple subsections which all discuss a different relevant concept. Firstly, it gives a description of the NPD process and the role of NPD teams, their structure, functioning, and processes. Subsequently, team performance is discussed in terms of the problem-solving speed of the team. The third subsection presents a description of the phenomenon of organizational resistance, and predicts its influence on the problem-solving speed of the team. The fourth and the fifth subsections include a description of respectively the framing activities of the team and the political skill of the supervisor. These sections also describe the expected relationship between these two variables and the relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed. All concepts are discussed in light of the NPD process.
2.1 New Product Development
As already mentioned, new product development is crucial for firms’ survival in a high competitive, fast-changing business environment. Brown and Eisenhardt argued that “although technical and market changes can never be fully controlled, proactive product development can influence the competitive success, adaptation, and renewal of organizations” (1995: 344). The main challenge for firms to survive in today’s environment is organizational renewal and product innovation (Baumol, 2004; Danneels, 2002). NPD is concerned with innovation and resource reconfiguration. To adapt to the fast-changing environment,
7 innovation is required and exploration, i.e. the search for new technologies or products, is a key activity in reaching that (McGrath, 2001). Organizations that have superior capabilities in exploration are the best able to adapt to the changing environment as exploration increases the diversity of an organization’s activities (McGrath, 2001). The radical exploratory innovations intend to fulfill the needs of emerging markets or customers, and require new knowledge or are based on existing knowledge (Benner & Tushman, 2002, 2003; McGrath, 2001).
The process of NPD is of crucial importance, but simultaneously very complex. Cooper (2001) developed the stage-gate system which shows the NPD process, that “consists of a series of stages, where the project team undertakes the work, obtains the needed information, and does the subsequent data integration and analysis, followed by gates, where go/kill decisions are made to continue to invest in the project” (Cooper, 2008: 214). Each of the stages is completed by the cross-functional NPD team. At the end of the stage a stage-gate committee, existing of senior managers from several departments evaluates the project and makes the go/kill decision (Cooper, 2001). The team proceeds stage by stage, until launching the product into the market. This process asks for effective NPD decisions and pushes the remainder of the process (Clark & Fujimoto, decisions, that should be made several times during the process, indicate the complexity of the NPD work, and form moments in which management may have resistance, resulting in a rejection of the product.
2.2 New Product Development Teams
Teams are entities, existing of at least two individuals, who interact interdependent of each other to achieve common goals (Baker & Sallas, 1997). Many different forms of cooperation within organizations and teams can be constructed based on, for instance, the expertise of people or the objectives they seek to achieve. Special kinds of diverse teams are NPD teams,
8 also called project groups or multifunctional teams, which are cross-functional teams that execute certain projects. An NPD team consists of a group of people from different functions, who are jointly responsible for the coordination and management of the team (Griffin & Hauser, 1992). Team members have different backgrounds; they are from different departments and disciplines throughout the organization (Denison et al., 1996; Kim & Kim, 2009). Typical NPD teams operate “non-routinized, ambiguous, resource-constrained, and cross-functional environments tasked with creating innovative outcomes” (Sivasubramaniam et al., 2012: 803). Firms rely on teams for product development in their development of successful new products (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992a; Sarin, 2009). The transfer of knowledge across the functional boundaries of the team members results in the creation of new solutions, services, and products (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995; Griffin & Hauser, 1992). The “NPD team is a more important factor in the success or otherwise of NPD than the NPD process”, and for instance effective communication is herein an important element (Chung et al., 2009).
In this NPD process, the strategic decisions are made by team members, and are therefore a mass of action, interaction, and counteraction (Dyan et al., 2012). The cross functionality and the corresponding interaction of the NPD team is expected to provide multiple advantages: team members maintaining contacts outside their team (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992b), members span organizational boundaries (Ancona, 1990; Ohmea, 1990), and the designs reduce cycle time in the NPD process (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992a; Hitt et al., 1993), improve quality and innovation (Ancona & Caldwell, 1990) and result in a high speed to the market (Datar et al., 1997). The NPD team must integrate diverse fields of expertise from both team members and people outside the team. Other research shows that this cross-functionality appears to have contradictory, complex effects that sometimes hinder, and sometimes stimulate, innovation and success (Ancona & Caldwell, 1990). In the innovation process, people operate from different perspectives, are motivated by self-interests and
9 struggles for collaboration arise when the means to perform work are unclear (Frost and Egri, 1991).
The need for teamwork in the NPD process emanates from two factors (Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009). The first one is specialization, which is required because of the enormous amount of new knowledge that arises in the technical field, and expertise and knowledge evolve rapidly. Secondly, due to shorter product life cycles, the lead time to deliver new products to the market is reduced, and therefore team work is necessary. The impact of the NPD team on the NPD performance is significant (Chung et al., 2009), and therefore this study zooms in on the team level interactions.
2.3 Team Performance: Problem-Solving Speed
As mentioned in the section before, the functioning of the NPD team is an important indicator for organizational innovative strength. The execution and integration of problem-solving cycles is leading in the performance of NPD (Clark & Fujimoto, 1989). The problem-solving competences of the team are in fact of crucial importance to the performance of the NPD team, and well-developed problem-solving competences also improve product quality (Li et al., 2011). NPD is framed as a continuous process of problem solving, and many of these problems must be solved collectively by team members (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995; Clark & Fujimoto, 1989, 1990; Myers & Marquis, 1969; Perrow, 1967; Sheremata, 2000). Teams that well-developed problem-solving competencies may contribute to the creation of a superior competitive advantage (Atuahene-Gima & Wei, 2011). The problem-solving competencies describe “the processes of defining and searching for a large number of creative and cost-effective solution ideas and of evaluating and implementing the solutions in a timely manner” (Atuahene-Gima & Wei, 2011: 82). Since these competencies are related to the concept of time, it is possible to relate this to the problem-solving speed of the team, which is “the degree
10 of speed associated with finding and implementing a solution” (Athuhene-Gima, 2003: 359), or “the ability to find and speedily implement a large number of solutions” (Athuahene-Gima & Wei, 2011: 82). A high problem-solving speed results in a short time to the market.
Furthermore, as mentioned before, the NPD process is about resource reconfiguration. To meet changing demands in both the external and internal environments, organizations must continuously reconfigure their activities (Raisch et al., 2009) and innovation is required (McGrath, 2001). Existing products often become obsolete in a dynamic environment, resulting in the need for organizations to explore (Jansen et al., 2005; Lavie et al., 2010). A high problem-solving speed might improve the exploration activities of the team as it becomes more efficient and finds solutions during the development of new products. The exploration in turn is, combined with exploitation activities, required for the firm to be ambidextrous, resulting in a higher dynamic adaptability. All of this will result in a competitive advantage for the firm, while increasing its chances of survival in the fast-changing business environment. Since the problem-solving speed of crucial importance to the team (and organizational) performance, this concept will play a central role in this thesis and the thesis will investigate how this concept is influenced.
2.4 Resistance
A form of organizational politics that has an impact on teams’ innovations is resistance. Product development can be seen as illegitimate, because product innovations harm the established structure of the team, while no precise rules exist (Dougherty and Heller, 1994). An innovation barrier (such as resistance) may diminish or inhibit innovation activities. The internal resistance exists within a firm because, for instance, managers are afraid of change (Madrid-Guijarro et al., 2009). Although the new products create opportunities for competitive advantage, senior managers -under certain circumstances- are oppose them
11 (Andrews & Smith 1996; Crawford & DiBenedetto, 2002). Resistance for product approval is a type of organizational politics, and might have far-reaching consequences because approval is required during the product development process (Sethi, 2012).
Although resistance may have many different root causes, this study focuses on the emergence of resistance through political reasons. Resistance is expressed in the form of the creation of obstacles to product approval and in the form of opposition to the product (Sethi et al., 2012). It is “the extent to which a new product faces opposition and hurdles in getting approval” (Sethi et al., 2012: 101). This resistance emerges during the gate reviews in the process: moments in which a go/kill decision follows (Cooper, 2001; Cooper, 2008). Reviewers might create obstacles to the product and/or become reluctant to approve the product (Sethi et al., 2012). Since the product development can only continue after a go decision (with or without additional conditions), an NPD team must ensure that it is able to handle this resistance.
Political processes are “those activities associated with innovation including the identification of problems to be solved, the consideration of alternative solutions and the introduction of new products and/or processes” (Jones and Stevens, 1999; Thomas, 1994: 13). Situational characteristics of political behavior are firstly uncertainty in the decision making process, and secondly the existence of resistance and conflict in the organization (Buchanan & Badham, 2008). Because of the increased uncertainty, the team might become unsure as to how it should define problems, find solutions and approach the problem from multiple angles. It is expected this uncertainty lowers the problem-solving speed of the team, as uncertainty can be defined as a lack of information with regard to the environment (Duncan, 1972; Shimizu & Hitt, 2004). The same applies to conflict, which would logically hinder finding, defining and implementation of solutions to problem. All of this implies that it seems likely that the resistance harms the problem-solving speed of the team.
12 A third and last possible explanation for the expected negative influence of resistance on the problem-solving speed of the team, is goal clarity. Because team members feel their product is unlikely to be approved, the goal of the project team might switch from developing a product to obtaining approval. Goal clarity results in a high NPD speed (Chen & Reilly, 2010), while goal ambiguity leads to more conflict and uncertainty, which cause the project’s completion to be delayed (Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). Regarding the problem-solving speed of the team, when a team has to deal with resistance, this speed will probably decrease.
H1. Resistance amongst outsiders of the team is negatively related to the problem-solving speed of the NPD team.
2.5 Framing
Influence, power, and politics influence every member of the organization, and therefore influence the organization as a whole (Vigoda-Gadot & Drory, 2006). ‘Politics’ is “the behavior not formally sanctioned by the organization, which produces conflict and disharmony in the work environment by pitting individuals and/or groups against one another, or against the organization” (Ferris et al., 1996: 234). Employees perceive organizational politics – that also includes resistance from gate reviewers – as a result of both organizational practices and politics, and of the behavior of co-workers and supervisors (Ferris et al., 1996). Employees have the decision-making power to influence the outcomes of the organization (Frost & Egri, 1991).
Research on NPD processes suggests three sets of constituent activities: linking technological possibilities and market in the design, linking expertise within the firm, and linking the product to the firm’s resources and strategy (Dougherty & Heller, 1994). The latter one includes the phenomenon of framing, which is a micro-political strategy. “Establishing
13 the framework within which issues will be viewed and decided is often tantamount to determining the result” (Pfeffer, 1992: 203). Frames are “an ex-ante part of the political process that produces decisions” (Kaplan, 2008: 746), through which team members can gain influence. In order to reach goals and to influence organizational behavior, the ability to set the terms of debate is an important mechanism (Pfeffer, 1992). This issue framing entails convincing others of the favorability of the product. (Dutton & Duncan 1987; Dutton & Jackson 1987). Politics and power influence the interpretive frames of individuals and groups (Frost & Egri, 1990a, b).
If an NPD team faces resistance to its product, it will likely move to obtain approval for further development (Sethi et al., 2012). Sethi et al. (2012: 102) describe framing as “presenting the product to the review committee and others (…) in such a way that it appears to be linked to the existing products, strategies, and competitive thrusts of the business unit”, rendering the product more acceptable (Dougherty and Heller, 1994). The degree in which the frame of the team is similar to the frame of the gate reviewers determines the necessity to engage in framing activities (Orlikowski & Gash, 1994). Team members can purposefully utilize framing activities to shape frames of for instance gate reviewers, resulting in a reduced resistance to the product (Benford & Snow, 2000; Goffman, 1974, 1986; Kaplan, 2008). A frame might function as a tool for solving problems and obtaining results (Bolman & Deal, 1991). There are several arguments for this.
First of all, framing helps in describing the contextual clues and it helps to consider alternative actions to obtain goals (Hallahan, 1999). Senior managers may get a new view upon the newly developed product. Therefore, product framing is expected to reduce conflicts that arise due to resistance between the team and the gate reviewers. These conflicts arise due to a disagreement between both groups about the possibilities and successfulness of the product. When there are fewer conflicts, team members may become more motivated and
14 want to work harder and better, resulting in better problem-solving competences. Second of all, the fact that the team can focus on its main task – developing products instead of overcoming resistance – will possibly result in a higher problem-solving speed, since framing activities reduce the goal ambiguity that exists due to the resistance of outsiders (Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). Thirdly, framing has an impact on the individual team members as well: framing helps in processing and ordering information of individuals (Hallahan, 1999). This means it reduces mutual misunderstanding about the purpose of the team and it reinforces goal clarity. The uncertainty and the team members’ lack of information as a result of the resistance, reduce their problem-solving speed. By changing the outsiders’ frame by framing the products, misunderstandings will be reduced, which will in turn increase the problem-solving speed (Atuahene-Gima, 2003). The effect of resistance depends on the framing activities of the team members, resulting in the following hypothesis:
H2. The framing activities of team members negatively influence the relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed.
When a team faces resistance to the new developed product, it seems likely that the problem-solving speed of the team reduces. If a product is framed in terms of an organization’s existing products, strategy or markets, the perceptual gap is likely to be reduced.
2.6 Political Skill
The political struggle of resistance that probably decreases the problem-solving speed, asks for decisive action from the team leader to manage these tensions. Team leaders must be politically competent or the team succumbs to the political tensions. A requirement for
15 success is the ownership of political skill (Pfeffer, 1981). To have a real impact on the organization, an employee needs a source of power, energy, and political skills where necessary (Mintzberg, 1983). Political skill means “the ability to effectively understand others at work, and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organizational objectives” (Ahearn et al., 2004: 311). A politically skilled team leader is able to find common ground with others, to empathize with others, and is able to influence others. This skill is of crucial importance to the effectiveness of work and is essential in dealing with politics within the organization (Ferris et al., 2007). An important subject of political skill is the power of individuals, or more precisely, interpersonal power (Treadway et al., 2011). This is the potential influence one employee has on another. The political skill of a leader has a positive influence on team performance (Ahearn et al., 2004). It is expected that, similar to the framing tactics that the team members use, the team leader is able to weaken the presumed negative relationship between resistance and the problem-solving speed of the team. There are several arguments for this statement.
Research shows that strong team leaders are able to coordinate and motivate their members, and are able to deal with organizational resistance in a timely manner (Keller, 2006). The well-skilled supervisor is able to signal in an early stadium the uncertainty that the team members experience due to the resistance and possible disapproval of the product. The uncertainty that arises in the team, resulting in a lower problem-solving speed due to a lack of motivation, can be mitigated by a good supervisor. Furthermore, the supervisor is able to influence the members. The supervisor can handle the goal ambiguity (as a result of resistance). He or she is expected to influence the members in such a way that they strive for the original goal (developing new products) instead of other goals (such as overcoming the political resistance), which improves the problem-solving competencies of the team.
16 Furthermore, a well-skilled supervisor is expected to be a good mediator, since he/she is able to empathize and understands people well (Treadway et al., 2011). In the case of conflict between gate reviewers and team members, a politically-skilled supervisor may render the situation as workable as possible. Resistance can still exist, but the supervisor ensures this does not harm the problem-solving speed of the team. Political skill is expected to weaken the negative relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed, resulting in the following hypothesis:
H3. The political skill of the team leader negatively influences the relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed.
2.7 Conceptual model
The hypotheses as described in the previous section, lead to an updated conceptual model, as depicted in the figure below:
Figure 2. The updated conceptual model
The dependent variable is the problem-solving speed of NPD teams. The independent variable is resistance that prevails amongst gate reviewers, who are outsiders to the team. This relationship is affected by political influences of both team leaders and team members. More specifically, the expected negative relationship is likely negatively moderated by both the political skills of the team leader and the framing activities of team members.
Resistance Problem-Solving Speed
Framing
Political Skill – (H2)
– (H1)
17
3. DATA & METHOD
This section describes the data collection and the construction of the several variables. The data has been analyzed using SPSS statistics software.
3.1 Sample and data collection
The sample for this research consisted of 31 teams (N=31) from the Development & Engineering department of a Dutch high-tech corporation with several offices worldwide. Most of its Research & Development processes are situated in the Netherlands, which is why the data was obtained from just one department of one location. In total, 32 New Product Development teams were approached, but since one team leader opted out of the study during the data-gathering process, the number of teams that joined the study was 31. This means the response rate of the study is 97%.
Participants were professional employees and their respective supervisors. In total, 173 employees responded to the questionnaire, including 31 team leaders and 142 team members. Among these respondents, 62.6% is male, 30.5% holds a bachelor degree, 40.8% holds a master degree and 19.6% of all the respondents holds a PhD. The average response rate per team was 72% (σ = 19%) and the size of the participating teams ranged from 3 to 18 team members (x̅ = 6.74, σ = 2.83).
3.2 Measurement and reliability of constructs
The Cronbach’s alpha of all variables is above .70, which indicates good reliability (Klein, 1999). Substantial increases in the reliability of any of the scales could not have been achieved by eliminating more items. All the items of the used variables are tested on inter-item correlation, and none of them includes values lower than .30. The lowest value is .339, which indicates there is no inter-item correlation within the variables and all items correlate
18 with the overall scale (Field, 2009). Existing and previously validated scales were used to measure the constructs. Responses to all the questions were given on a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = “fully disagree” to 7 = “fully agree”.
3.2.1 Dependent variable
Problem-Solving Speed (α = .804) is “the time is the ability to find and speedily implement a large number of solutions” (Atuahene-Gima & Wei, 2011: 82). The scale is constructed based on validated questions from earlier research (Athuahene-Gima, 2003), and adapted to match the goal of this study. This variable is measured in the survey of both team members and leaders, by means of identical questions and consists of six items. To determine whether or not it is possible to combine both groups, two scales were computed. For team members a Cronbach’s α of .802 was found with skewness -.687 and kurtosis 1.058, and for team leaders a Cronbach’s α of .798 was found with skewness -.042 and kurtosis -.065, which both indicate a good reliability and a normal distribution. A t-test to compare the answers of both groups, t(30) = .124, p<.05, showed no significant difference in responses. The Cronbach’s α of the combined scale is .804.
3.2.2 Independent variable
Resistance (α = .895) is “the extent to which reviewers created obstacles to the product and were reluctant to approve the product” (Sethi et al., 2012: 107). This variable consists of four items and refers to the opposition the team faces to get product approval. The scale is based on similar constructs from a previous study by Sethi et al. (2012), which has proven to be a valid scale. A Cronbach’s α of .895 was found with skewness .143 and kurtosis .420, which indicates a good reliability and a normal distribution.
19 3.2.3 Moderator variables
Framing (α = .765) is “the extent to which the product was presented to the review committee and others in the organization during the initial stages of product development in such a way that it appeared to be linked to the business unit’s existing products, strategies, and competitive thrusts” (Sethi et al., 2012: 107). The scale is based on similar constructs from a previous study by Sethi et al. (2012), which have proven to be a valid scale. A Cronbach’s α of .765 was found with skewness .247 and kurtosis -.732, which indicates a good reliability and a normal distribution.
Political skill (α = .863) includes a pattern of social competences of the supervisor, which has an effect on both the employee and others. It is “the ability to effectively understand others at work, and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organizational objectives” (Ahearn et al., 2004: 311). This construct refers to the team leader, and consists of nine items. This scale is based on earlier research (Ferris et al., 2005), and is further customized for this study. A Cronbach’s α of .863 was found with skewness -.019 and kurtosis -.981, which indicates a good reliability and a normal distribution.
3.2.4 Control variables effecting problem-solving speed
Boundary Spanning (α = .722) is the extent to which the supervisor attempts to obtain access to information outside the team. It is a form of internal organizational competition (Brion et al., 2012) and it shows the “entire set of interactions a team must undertake in dealing with others upon whom it is dependent for information or resources or with whom it must coordinate” to obtain its objectives (Ancona & Caldwell, 1989: 3). In most cases a project representative is responsible for the interaction with top managers (Felekoglu et al., 2013). Successful NPD team leaders were also more likely to participate in political lobbying for
20 obtaining resources and support for the team (Ancona & Caldwell, 1990), the time-to-market improves (Kessler & Chakrabarti, 1996). Because of this influence, this study controls for this phenomenon. The items that were used to construct this scale were based on Ancona and Caldwell’s (1992b) 24-item scale, and adapted to the survey of this study. This construct refers to the activities of the team leader, and consists of five items. A Cronbach’s α of .722 was found with skewness .507 and kurtosis -.257, which indicates a good reliability and a normal distribution.
Team discussion (α = .764) includes the extent to which team members discuss their own functioning, effectiveness and objectives on a regular base. This construct is part of team reflexivity, which is “the extent to which teams reflect upon and modify their functioning” (Schippers et al., 2007: 189). Since non-reflexive teams show less awareness of, for instance, the team environment (Schippers et al., 2007), this study controls for this phenomenon. This construct refers to the activities of the team members, and consists of four items. A Cronbach’s α of .764 was found with skewness .680 and kurtosis .127, which indicates a good reliability and a normal distribution.
Team heterogeneity (α = .735) is the amount of specialized knowledge available in the team (Lewis, 2003). This is part of transactive memory systems (TMS), which are collective memory systems, “consisting of the combination of individual memory systems and communications between individuals, enabling the shared division of cognitive labor to encode, store, and retrieve knowledge from different but complementary domains of expertise in collective tasks” (Kotlarsky et al., 2015: 32). Since TMS positively influence in the NPD process the speed to the market (Akgün et al., 2006), the analyses in this study will be controlled for this aspect. This construct is posed to the team members, and consists of four
21 items. A Cronbach’s α of .735 was found with skewness -.410 and kurtosis -.267, which indicates a good reliability and a normal distribution.
Table 1: Summary of constructs and variables
Variable Construct Items Valid N Cronbach’s α Mean σ Skewness Kurtosis Dependent Problem-solving speed 5 31 .804 46.87 5.85 -.251 -.337
Independent Resistance 4 31 .895 15.66 2.83 .143 .420
Moderating Framing 3 31 .765 12.93 1.78 .247 -.732
Political skill 8 31 .858 40.74 6.86 -.019 -.981
Control Team Discussion 4 31 .764 17.40 2.13 .680 .127
Boundary spanning 5 31 .722 24.45 4.11 .507 -.257
Team heterogeneity 4 31 .735 20.87 2.01 -.410 -.267
3.3 Validation
For good research it is necessary to secure the accuracy of the conceptual model and to establish causal links, which cannot be confused with improper connections. The more the structure of a study excludes alternative explanations, the higher the internal validity of the study (De Vaus, 2001). To improve this, this research conducted a proper ex-ante literature study. In order to construct the variables and to establish validity, questions from previous studies were used to ensure that the concepts measure what they intend to measure.
An explicatory factor analysis (EFA) is carried out for the different constructs, in order to ensure the validity of the constructs. To investigate the underlying structure of the questionnaire and the items assessing the different variables, the collected data was subjected to principal component analyses with direct oblimin rotation. Prior to running the analysis, examination of the data indicated that not every variable was perfectly normally distributed. However, given the robust nature of factor analysis, these minor deviations were not considered problematic (Allen & Bennett, 2010). Furthermore, a linear relationship was identified among the variables. The following criteria are applied to each item: (1)
22 communality higher than .30, (2) dominant loading greater than .50, (3) cross-loading lower than .30, and (4) satisfactory scree plot criterion (DeVellis, 1991).
The construct of problem-solving speed was originally measured in six items. The EFA initially identified two underlying factors with eigenvalues higher than one. However, one question – for each problem encountered, we are spoiled with the choice of solutions – did not have a strong relationship with the other items. Therefore, this item is omitted, since it had a KMO <.50. After eliminating this item, problem-solving speed is reduced to five items, loading on just one factor. All item loadings were larger than .73, communality above .53, and the KMO of .81 indicated sufficient sampling adequacy. The factor accounts for around 62% of the variance in questionnaire data.
The EFA of resistance, which was measured in four items, identified one underlying factor with an eigenvalue higher than one. All item loadings were larger than .82, communality above .75, and the KMO of .76 indicated sufficient sampling adequacy. This factor accounts for around 76% of the variance in questionnaire data.
The EFA of framing activities, which was measured in three items, identified one underlying factor with an eigenvalue higher than one. All item loadings were larger than .74, communality above .55, and the KMO of .64 indicated sufficient sampling adequacy. The factor accounts for around 69% of the variance in questionnaire data. The construct of political skill was measured in nine items. The EFA initially identified two underlying factors with eigenvalues higher than one. All item loadings were larger than .59, communality above .41, and the KMO of .79 indicated sufficient sampling adequacy. The factors account for approximately 63% of the variance in questionnaire data.
23
3.4 Common method bias
This study was able to collect data from multiple resources. The constructs are based on data from team leaders, team members, or both. These combined scales minimize the threat of the common method bias (Field, 2009), which increases in turn the reliability of this study. The level of analysis in this study is the team level. Both team level outcomes (the problem-solving speed of the entire team) and team level interactions (resistance of outsiders, framing activities) are investigated. The measurement of supervisors’ political skills is also on team level, since the supervisor is part of the team, and influences the entire team.
24
4. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
This chapter presents an overview of the obtained results. The hypotheses are all tested using SPSS statistics software.
4.1 Descriptive
Table 2 provides an overview of the correlations between all the used variables. A correlation coefficient of .90 indicates multicollinearity probably exists (Field, 2009). No multicollinearity exists in this study, since the highest correlation coefficient is .569, which is far below the maximum. Furthermore, the variance inflation factors (VIF) are calculated to test once more for multicollinearity. All VIF scores were far below the maximum of 10, with a minimum of 1.02 and a maximum of 1.92, which again shows there is no multicollinearity in this study (Field, 2009).
Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlation
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Problem-solving speed 46.87 5.85 – 2. Resistance 15.66 2.83 -.367* – 3. Framing 12.93 1.78 .412* -.241 – 4. Political skill 40.74 6.13 .409* -.318 .318 – 5. Team discussion 17.40 2.13 .058 .170 .276 .058 – 6. Boundary spanning 24.45 4.11 .201 -.479** .383* .569** -.160 – 7. Team heterogeneity 20.87 2.01 .040 .122 .026 -.415* .008 -.189 – * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
4.2 Testing hypotheses
In chapter two, a description of the conceptual model was presented. Through regression analyses, the assumed relationships between the variables are tested in this chapter. Table 3 presents an overview of the obtained results. Figure 3 and 4 give a first insight into the
25 different main effects and interaction effects of the independent variable with both moderating variables. The remainder of this chapter will describe the results more in detail and will discuss the main effect and interaction effects in light of the hypotheses.
Table 3: Regression results – Problem-Solving Speed (N=31)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Main Effect Variable
Intercept 38.233 44.616 51.986 42.224 51.315 15.454 19.108 19.275 15.621 17.880 Resistance -.766† -.664 -.855* -.753† (.426) (.414) (.386) (.402) Moderator variables Framing 1.150† .750† (.676) (.664) Political skill .402* .381† (.183) (.186) Interaction term Resistance x framing -.190 -.077 (.207) (.205) Resistance x political skill -.102† -.074
(.055) (.062) Covariates Team Discussion .260 .359 -.132 .051 -.193 (.521) (.504) (.545) (.456) (.512) Boundary Spanning .330 .089 -.236 -.427 -.541 (.274) (.296) (.334) (.312) (.338) Team heterogeneity .240 .278 .131 .652 .556 (.555) (.534) (.520) (.512) (.525) R-square .055 .160 .280 .397 .432 R-square change .055 .104 .025 .088 .054 F-value .528 1.237 1.552 2.630* 2.093† † p < .10; * p < .05; ** p <.01
Unstandardized regression coefficients (B) are reported
26
Figure 3. Interaction graph framing
Figure 4. Interaction graph political skill
4.2.1 Relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed
In order to be able to test the relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed, and to be able to later test the moderating effects, an initial model consisting of only control variables is created. This model (model 1, table 3) shows the relationship between the three control variables and the problem-solving speed of the team and is used as a reference in other
48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
Low Resistance High Resistance
P rob le m-s ol vi n g s p ee d Low Framing High Framing 39 39.5 40 40.5 41 41.5 42 42.5 43
Low Resistance High Resistance
P rob le m-s ol vi n g s p ee d
Low Political skill High Political skill
27 regression analysis. This model shows a weak relationship that explains only four percent of the total variance (R-square .055) and is not significant (p >.05).
Adding the independent variable resistance to this model, a significant relationship (model 2) follows F(1,29) = 4.503, p <.10. The relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed is negative B = -.766, p<.10, supporting hypothesis 1. Though the R2 of .160 does point out this model is weak as it only explains 16% of the variation in teams’ problem-solving speed.
4.2.2 Moderating role of framing activities
To test the moderating role of team members’ framing activities on the negative relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed, additional hierarchical modeling was used. Model 2 forms the starting point fort his analysis, and the variable framing has been added. The data of this analysis is described as model 3. The result of this analysis is a moderate strong model with a R2 of .280, but is significant F(6,24)= 1.552, p>.05. Framing has a positive influence on the problem-solving speed on the team (B = 1.150, p >.05). Looking at the interaction graph of figure 3, the main effects of this relationship become visible in the lines of high framing and low framing with regard to the level of problem-solving speed. There is likely to be a main effect of framing in that high framing leads to a higher problem-solving speed than low framing. The problem-problem-solving speed under low resistance is higher than the problem-solving speed under high resistance, suggesting there is a main effect for resistance, as already described in 4.2.1.
While the effect of framing on problem-solving speed is significant, the interaction effect of framing and resistance is negative yet insignificant (B = -.190, p>.10). This is visible in figure 3 as well. The lines of that figure are nearly parallel, suggesting that in case there is interaction, this will be of little consequence. In sum, both figure 3 and the results of the
28 regression analysis show a main effect of resistance, a main effect of framing, and no interaction effect. These results do not support hypothesis 2.
4.2.3 Moderating role of political skill
To test the moderating role of team leaders’ political skills on the negative relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed, additional hierarchical modeling was used. Model 2 forms the starting point for his analysis, and the variable political skill was added. The data of this analysis is described as model 4. This model is a strong model with a R2 of .397 and is significant F(6,24)= 2.630, p<.05, explaining almost 40% of the total variance in teams’ problem-solving speed. Political skill increases the problem-solving speed of the team (B = .402, p <.05). Looking at the interaction graph of figure 4, the main effects of this relationship become visible as well. There is likely to be a main effect of political skill in that high political skill leads to a higher problem-solving speed than low political skill. The problem-solving speed under low resistance is higher than the problem-solving speed under high resistance, again suggesting there is a main effect for resistance.
The interaction effect of political skill and resistance is negative and significant (B =-.102, p<.10), which means that the negative relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed is weakened by political skill. This is visible in figure 4 as well. The slopes of the lines of that figure are different, suggesting that there is some interaction. These results support hypothesis 3.
4.2.4 Complete model
To test both the moderating role of team members’ framing activities and the team leaders’ political skills on the negative relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed, additional hierarchical modeling was used. Model 2 again forms the starting point for this
29 analysis and both the moderating variables has been added simultaneously. The data used for this analysis is described as model 5. The result of this analysis is a strong model with a R-square of .432, and is significant F(8,22)= 2.093, p<.10. This models shows that both framing (B=.750, p<.10) and political skill (B=.381, p<.10) increase the problem-solving speed. The moderating effects of both variables are negative, though insignificant.
30
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
While much is known about the functioning and importance of well-developed NPD processes (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995; Clark & Fujimoto, 1991) and about the relevance of problem-solving competencies (Atuahene-Gima & Wei, 2011; Chen & Reilly, 2010), and academics have proven managerial resistance against new developed products exist (Sethi et al., 2010), there is little understanding of the interrelationship between all these factors. To address this gap in the literature and to investigate how both team leaders and team members can improve the team performance in terms of an improvement of their problem-solving speed, this research is done. The findings support existing theory about the negative influence of resistance and the way team leaders can improve the performance of team. However, no evidence is found that team members can increase their development speed through framing their products. Below, the main findings and implications for theory and practice are given.
5.1 Discussion
A prodigious amount of research has been conducted on political activities in organizations (Pfeffer, 1992; Mintzberg, 1983), especially within the process of NPD. This field of research emphasizes the importance of several political circumstances, including the resistance that arises among senior managers and gate reviewers. This resistance can be of grave consequence to the NPD process as it might hinder further product development. Still, for several reasons that will not be discussed here, it does exist and employees must find a way to tackle this issue. There is a common understanding that the problem-solving competencies of teams are of crucial importance to solid product development processes (Atuahene-Gima & Wei, 2011, Chen & Reilly, 2010; Kessler et al., 2000). Research has mainly focused on politics or several aspects of it. These aspects – as is the case with the ‘resistance’- are treated as moderating or mediating variables, but rarely as a starting point. This is surprising, since
31 researchers have reached a consensus that resistance does exist. At the same time there is a logic to this, as authors have proven resistance is of significant value as a moderator or mediator (Sethi et al.,, 2012). To complement the literature, this study has treated resistance as a fact, a circumstance with consequences. Given that, this study intends to find an answer to the main research question: to what extent can team members and team leaders through respectively framing activities and political skills improve the problem-solving speed of the team, in the case of resistance of outsiders against newly developed products?
To deal with the possible resistance, team members and/or team leaders must undertake decisive action. Therefore, this thesis constructed two hypotheses. The fist one concerns the skills of the team leader and the other concerns team members’ tactics. Political skill should enable the team leader to move the team members away from the resistance, and regain focus on the development of the product, leading to increased problem-solving speed (Keller, 2006). The framing activities should help the team members regain their focus on the original goal and to reduce misunderstandings that lead to a lower problem-solving speed.
The basic model postulated that resistance negatively influences problem-solving speed of teams. This hypothesis was supported, indicating that resistance indeed decreases teams’ problem-solving speed. This is in line with the literature, that poses that organizational resistance may have far-reaching consequences, since approval is required during the product development process (Sethi et al., 2012). This negative relationship can be explained (as argued earlier) by the fact that because of the resistance, goal ambiguity arises and team members feel uncertain about the result of their functioning. The uncertainty results in a delay in product completion (Wheelwright & Clark, 1992), and apparently in a decrease of the problem-solving speed.
The first moderating model tested for the effect of teams’ framing activities on the negative relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed. Contrary to the
32 expectations, this relationship could not be supported. Framing does show a positive relation on problem-solving speed, meaning it increases the developing speed of the team. An explanation for this is the fact that through framing the products, the task for the team becomes more clear for the individual team members, increasing their speed. The interaction effect of framing and resistance did not correlate with development speed. This implies that team members cannot, through framing their products, improve their own problem-solving speed under the condition of resistance. The unsupported relationship with framing might be due to the fact that resistance has other causes than the product alone. Resistance might arise due to a lack on confidence the gate reviewers have in the team or (for example) due to a lack of money.
The second moderator model tested for the postulation that political skill negatively influences the negative relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed. The results show that a leader may increase the problem-solving speed of the team due to his/her political skills. Moreover, the moderating relationship was supported, indicating that political skill indeed decreases the negative effect of resistance on problem-solving speed. This means, in contrast to the framing activities of the team, the skills of the team leader are of importance in case the team faces resistance from outsiders. An overview of the three tested hypotheses is given in table 4 below.
Table 4: Overview tested hypotheses
H1 Resistance amongst outsiders of the team is negatively related
to the problem-solving speed of the NPD team. Supported
H2 The framing activities of team members negatively influence
the relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed. Not supported
H3 The political skill of the team leader negatively influences the
33 An additional moderating regression analysis was ultimately conducted in order to investigate the effect that arises when both team leader and team members move to deal with the resistance of outsiders. Surprisingly, this analysis resulted in a strongly significant model which shows a positive effect of both actions on the problem-solving speed. This implies that team members and team leaders do not harm each other in attempts to increase the problem-solving speed of the team. The interaction effects again were not significant, which suggests it is not necessary for both to attempt to influence the product-approval process in case the NPD team experiences managerial resistance against the new developed product.
Looking back to the main question of this study, it can be concluded that managerial resistance against new developed products negatively influence the problem-solving speed of NPD teams. The problem-solving speed of the team decreases when organizational resistance increases. In this situation, teams cannot increase their problem-solving speed through framing their activities or product. What does significantly increase the problem-solving speed of the team is a team leader with well-developed political skills. A political-skilled team leader is able to diminish the negative impact of the managerial resistance on the problem-solving speed of the team. Furthermore, if both the team members and their team leader use their framing tactics and political skills respectively, the team’s problem-solving speed increases. However, this enhancement has no relationship to managerial resistance, as no interaction effects exist.
5.2 Implications
This study has made several contributions. In this paragraph both the theoretical and the practical implications are discussed.
34 5.2.1 Implications for theory
The contributions of this study are threefold. Firstly, a prodigious amount of research has been conducted on the influence of organizational politics. This study zooms in on several aspects of it. This research extends the ongoing debate of organizational politics, through focusing on one of its main antecedents, namely resistance. Though we know new-to-the-firm products may lead to the creation of obstacles by managers (Sethi et al., 2012), now we know how to keep the negative consequences as small as possible, given the fact managerial resistance exists. The findings expand the probable disastrous consequences of resistance of team performance, since this study proves a negative relationship on the problem-solving speed of the team.
Secondly, this study contributes to the understanding of how political skills of supervisors can positively influence problem-solving speed of teams and can help them to deal with the resistance from outsiders. Political skill predicts interpersonal power (Treadway, 2011) and it represents influencing behavior toward others (Ferrit et al., 2007). This research is line with this current stream of research, showing that political skill does have influence on other people and on team performance.
The third and last contribution of this study centers around the impact of framing activities. Sethi (2012) argues that framing does not reduce resistance, but his research did not address the impact of framing on performance in terms of problem-solving speed. The positive relationship between framing and problem-solving speed indicates that framing activities enhance the performance of the team. An explanation can be that through product framing, the team goal for the individual team members becomes clearer. The findings of Chen & Reilly (2010), who showed that NPD speed is improved by goal clarity, are extended in this study, showing how framing leads to goal clarity, eventually increasing NPD speed. However, framing does not affect the relationship between resistance and problem-solving
35 speed. Given this, we can argue that it is for both team members and the team leader profitable to actively take action with their tactics and skills in case the team faces resistance, though this does not have any effect on the relationship between resistance and the problem-solving speed.
In previous studies, no distinction was made between the members and the supervisor of the team. This study makes its contribution by investigating whose skills or tactics have the most influence under which conditions on the speed.
5.2.2 Implications for practice
Aside from the fact that research into this topic is of theoretical relevance, it also has a practical relevance. Firms should be aware of the overall efficiency and effectiveness of their NPD activities as well as the positive or negative impact of politics on these activities. Since organizations increasingly rely on their NPD teams (Sarin, 2009) and these teams are utilized more frequently, it is all the more important to understand team processes, interactions, and outcomes.
The measured resistance of this research is experienced by the team members. This perception of resistance results in a lower problem-solving speed. Given this, managers or team leaders should prevent that team members hear anything about possible rejection of the product. It seems better to keep them away from the rumor of senior management about the possibility the product will be rejected.
Furthermore, this study points teams towards right strategy to increase their problem-solving speed. While political skills have an impact on problem-problem-solving speed in the case of resistance, framing activities do not affect the relationship between resistance and problem-solving speed. The finding that the skills of the supervisor are of a greater importance than the tactics of the team members implies that an NPD team must not put energy in product framing
