Konstantinos Kostopoulos

Knowledge effectiveness, social context and innovation

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to conduct an investigation into knowledge‐sharing mechanisms by empirically testing the role that context plays in the transfer of actionable knowledge, and, in turn, for innovation.Design/methodology/approach – A multiple‐respondents survey was performed in 72 business units of companies belonging to the ICT, pharmaceutical and food industries in Greece. In total, 295 useful questionnaires were collected using a multiple respondent strategy. All constructs were measured with multi‐item scales and validated using exploratory factor analyses. A total of seven hypotheses were generated following a literature review on the key determinants of context for effective knowledge sharing. The hypotheses were tested using ordinary least squares regression.Findings – The research shows that when units pursue knowledge transfer between their different actors, contextual factors such as trust, motivation to transfer knowledge, management support and learning orientation are cruc...

Team exploratory and exploitative learning : psychological safety, task conflict and team performance.

This study conceptualized exploratory and exploitative learning as distinct team-level activities, constructed measures of them, and examined their relationships with psychological safety, task conflict, and team performance. Structural equation analysis in a sample of 142 innovation project teams indicated that psychological safety was linearly and nonlinearly related to team exploitative and exploratory learning, respectively; whereas task conflict positively moderated the relationship between psychological safety and exploitative learning. Furthermore, exploratory and exploitative learning were additively related to team performance, as rated by team managers, and mediated its relationship with psychological safety. The findings contribute to understanding how and under what conditions organizational teams engage in exploratory and exploitative learning to maximize their performance.

Structure and Function of Team Learning Emergence : A Multilevel Empirical Validation

The aim of this study is to examine how learning emerges in terms of structure and function to transform from an individual to a collective (team) phenomenon. Drawing on learning theory and multilevel thinking, the authors developed and validated measures for the basic team learning processes (i.e., intuition, interpretation, integration, and codification) in three independent field studies of innovation project teams and employed multilevel structural equation modeling to test relationships across the individual and team levels of analysis. Their results confirm the hypothesis that team learning originates in individual intuitions, is amplified through interpretation and integration, and manifests itself at the team level via the codification of collective cognition and action. Across the three studies, team learning was found to significantly affect team performance. The authors’ approach contributes to a conceptualization and measurement of team learning as a multilevel phenomenon.

A Socio‐Psychological Perspective on Team Ambidexterity: The Contingency Role of Supportive Leadership Behaviours

In addressing the notion of team ambidexterity, we propose that socio-psychological factors (i.e., team cohesion and team efficacy) may help team members to resolve paradoxical challenges and to combine exploratory and exploitative learning efforts. In addition, we theorize that senior executives may play an important role in facilitating the emergence of ambidexterity at lower hierarchical levels. In doing so, we develop a multilevel contingency framework and propose that the effectiveness of teams to achieve ambidexterity is contingent upon supportive leadership behaviours at the organizational-level. Using multilevel, multisource, and temporally separated data on 87 teams within 37 high-tech and pharmaceutical firms, we not only reveal how team cohesion and efficacy may matter for the emergence of team ambidexterity but also show that the effectiveness of supportive leadership behaviours from senior executives varies across cohesive and efficacious teams.

Employability and job performance as links in the relationship between mentoring receipt and career success: a study in SMEs

This study developed and tested a model that posited employability and job performance as intervening variables in the relationship between receipt of mentoring and career success. Participants were 207 information technology (IT) professionals employed in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in three European countries. Mentoring receipt was related to both employability and job performance. Employability mediated the relationship of mentoring receipt with objective and subjective career success, as well as its relationship with job performance. The findings indicate that receipt of mentoring is connected to job performance, a link that has hitherto lacked empirical evidence. In addition, they suggest a pivotal role for employability in the relationship of mentoring receipt with job performance and career success. Overall, this study helps unveil the mechanism through which mentoring affects career outcomes. Moreover, it shows that the benefits of mentoring hold outside the context of large corporations.

Factors Affecting the Performance of New Product Development Teams: Some European Evidence

New product development often necessitates activities that are performed by different departments or units within the same or between different organizations. To counteract coordination and communication problems that may arise across unit boundaries, many enterprises introduce cross-functional new product development (NPD) teams to direct and control the development process. The objective of this work is to address the lack of attention paid to the innovation processes that occurs within organizational teams, when examining innovation in organizations. Most studies focus on individual, organizational, or even interorganizational-level conceptualizations to examine innovation in organizations (Organization Science 3(3): 383–397, 1992; Academy of Management Journal 48(2): 346–357, 2005), thus failing to identify the crucial role that teams play during innovation development.