Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Empowering Leadership in R&D Teams: A Closer Look at Its Components, Process, and Outcomes
Empowering Leadership in R&D Teams: A Closer Look at Its Components, Process, and Outcomes
defined as leader behaviors where authority, collaboration, and communication), which in turn
autonomy and responsibility are shared with affect team effectiveness such performance and
employees in order to enhance and encourage innovativeness.
employees to be more receptive and adaptive to their Following the heuristic model of team effective-
work environment (Gao et al., 2011), has gained ness, we propose empowering leadership as the con-
increasing popularity in R&D management as it pro- textual factor in our model. Faraj and Sambamurthy
vides a balance between autonomy and control, (2006) defined empowering leadership in the R&D
encourages member participation as well as self- context to consist of three dimensions: encouraging
leadership, and benefits creativity and innovation teamwork, encouraging self-development, and par-
(Faraj and Sambamurthy, 2006; Zhang and Bartol, ticipative goal setting. Of these three dimensions,
2010). encouraging teamwork belongs to group-focused
Recent research points out that there are two dis- empowering leadership as its influence target is a
tinct behavioral components of leadership: (1) those whole group rather than individual members within
targeted at influencing the group as a whole (e.g., the group: the emphasis is on common ground,
setting goals for the whole group and providing shared values, and ideology of teamwork. Encourag-
inspiration for the whole group); and (2) those aimed ing self-development and participative goal setting
at individual group members (e.g., setting goals for belongs to individual-focused empowering leader-
individual members and providing individualized ship as leaders need to be aware of each person’s
coaching). The former is called group-focused lead- unique skills to be able to set performance goals that
ership, while the latter is termed individual-focused fit followers’ capabilities and to provide individual
leadership (Wu et al., 2010). The concept of differ- learning opportunities. Differentiated individual-
entiated individual-focused leadership builds on the focused empowering leadership in encouraging self-
notion of individual-focused leadership and refers to development and participative goal setting describes
leaders exhibiting varying levels of individual- leader treating members differently in individual-
focused leadership behavior across different group focused activities, such as providing more resources/
members, for example, treating some members better support to some members than others, and giving
than others, or providing more support to some more opportunities for individual learning to some
members than others (Wu et al., 2010). A critical members than others. For team processes, we focus
question concerning differentiated leadership is on two specific forms: intra-team competition and
whether it is beneficial or detrimental to team effec- collaboration. These processes, accordingly, lead to
tiveness in R&D teams. Wu et al. (2010) reported different team outcomes, such as team innovati-
that differentiated individual-focused transforma- veness and performance. Figure 1 delineates the pro-
tional leadership harms group effectiveness through posed research model.
self-efficacy divergence. However, much is still left
unexplored. For example, what are the effects of
2.1. Group-focused empowering
differentiated individual-focused empowering lead-
leadership
ership on other team outcomes, such as performance
and innovativeness, and through what mechanism? Group-focused leadership sets its influence target as
To advance this line of research, this research aims the whole group, rather than individual members
to investigate empowering leadership in R&D teams within the group. Empowering leaders encourage
through the lens of group-focused and differentiated teamwork by urging the whole team to work together
individual-focused leadership, and further explores as a team and coordinate efforts with each other
how they affect team innovativeness and perfor- (Pearce and Sims, 2002). Thus, in this study, we refer
mance through team processes, i.e., intra-team com- to encouraging teamwork as group-focused empow-
petition and collaboration. ering leadership.
By nature, people are prone to have positive atti-
tudes toward collaboration. Relatedness, i.e., the
2. Theory and hypotheses need for social connection and intimacy, is one of the
three core psychological needs of human being
Based on the input-process-output model, the heuris- (Gagne and Deci, 2005). Collaboration with other
tic model of team effectiveness (Cohen and Bailey, team members can provide fulfillment of the need of
1997) suggests that team effectiveness is a function relatedness. Building upon the human need to be
of contextual factors and group processes, among related, group-focused empowering leadership
others. Leadership behaviors serve as a contextual emphasizes the importance of the team to work
factor and influence team processes (e.g., conflicts, together as an entity and coordinate efforts with each
2C 2015
V R&D Management
RADMA ••,Wiley
and John ••, 2015
& Sons Ltd © 2015 RADMA
R&D and John46,
Management Wiley & Sons727
4, 2016 Ltd
Yu-Qian Zhu and Houn-Gee Chen Empowering leadership in R&D teams
Group-focused + + Team
Intra-team
empowering innovativeness
leadership collaboration
+
–
Differentiated
individual-focused + Intra-team Team
empowering competition – performance
leadership
other; team members are likely to embrace teamwork far as performance goals are concerned. Low levels
as a subjective norm, i.e., a perceived expectations to of differentiated leadership, on the contrary, suggest
perform what is expected from relevant individuals that the leader provides similar level of participation
or groups (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). In a team and support for development for each team member.
where there is strong group-focused empowering Prior research has demonstrated some detrimental
leadership, team members are more likely to embrace effects of differentiated leadership on team member
teamwork as the right thing to do, and therefore form relationship. Sherony and Green (2002) found that
positive interaction with each other and collaborate coworker relationship quality increased as cowork-
with each other to achieve common team goals. ers’ similarity in leader–member exchange (LMX)
Drawing on the above reasoning, we predict: quality grew and decreased as similarity in LMX
diminished. Within-team differentiated leadership
H1: Group-focused empowering leadership is posi-
results in the formation of subgroups in teams: an
tively related to intra-team collaboration.
ingroup and an outgroup, with the former enjoying a
better relationship with the leader. Social psycholo-
2.2. Differentiated individual-focused gists argue that the ingroup may seek positive dis-
empowering leadership tinctiveness through direct competition with the
outgroup; while the outgroup may try to reverse the
Individual-focused leadership has its roots in situ-
relative positions of the ingroup on salient dimen-
ational leadership theories, which suggest that effec-
sions (Tajfel and Turner, 1979, p. 44). On a broader
tive leaders should vary their behavior on the basis of
scale, when leaders do not treat every member
follower’s individual characteristics (i.e., capabil-
equally, members also compete with each other for
ities), as well as contextual factors (Wu et al., 2010).
supervisor attention (Thibaut and Kelley, 2004) and
For the three dimensions of R&D empowering lead-
scarce resources, such as opportunities to learn new
ership proposed by Faraj and Sambamurthy (2006),
things, skills, and abilities etc. (Johnson and Johnson,
encouraging self-development and participative goal
1989). As a result, higher differentiated individual-
setting are considered individual-focused empower-
focused empowering leadership may lead to higher
ing leadership as self-development opportunities, and
levels of intra-team competition. Thus, we predict the
performance goals need to be tailored to individual
following:
capabilities and needs.
Differentiated individual-focused empower- H2: Differentiated individual-focused empowering
ing leadership, however, captures the variation of leadership is positively related to intra-team
individual-focused leadership among team members competition.
(Wu et al., 2010). A high level of differentiated lead-
ership signifies that the leader treats different
2.3. Intra-team collaboration and
members differently. For example, instead of treating
team effectiveness
all members as the same, the leader may encourage
some members to seek new opportunities to grow We focus on team innovativeness and team perfor-
more often than other members. Or the leader may sit mance as two measures of team effectiveness in the
with some members and discuss their performance R&D context. Collaboration supports innovation in
goals with them, but give directive orders to others as three ways: expertise, creative thinking skill, and
728
© 2015 RADMA and John Wiley
R&D Management 46, 4,&2016
Sons Ltd R&D Management
C 2015 RADMA
V ••, ••,&2015
and John Wiley 3
Sons Ltd
Yu-Qian Zhu and Houn-Gee Chen Empowering leadership in R&D teams
intrinsic task motivation (Amabile, 1998). In teams and successful project integration, both intra-team
that have a collaboration climate, people help and and inter-team collaboration are vital (Hoegl et al.,
support each other’s work, offer advice, and share 2004). Intra-team competition, on the contrary, may
information and ideas with each other. Amabile be detrimental to R&D team effectiveness. People in
(1998) contended that information sharing and competitive teams are likely to keep valuable infor-
cooperation heighten peoples’ enjoyment of work mation proprietary. Teammates remain indifferent to
and thus their intrinsic motivation. Scholars reported one another and avoid interacting for fear that doing
that intrinsic motivation predicts R&D engineer crea- so will result in exploitation (Tjosvold, 1986), thus
tivity measured either with self-report or supervisor damaging team cohesion and communication, which
rating (Shin and Zhou, 2003; Dewett, 2007). Creative are important contributors to team innovativeness
performance of employees, in turn, provides the basis (Hulsheger et al., 2009). The possibility also exists
for innovation (Oldham and Cummings, 1996). for teammates to interfere, obstruct, or in some other
Meanwhile, the more often people exchange ideas way make the behavior of another less effective
and thoughts by working together, the more knowl- (Tjosvold, 1986). Thus, intra-team competition may
edge and expertise they will acquire. Finally, insights have negative influences on team effectiveness in
and lessons learned by one member are shared so that both innovativeness and performance:
the whole team benefits vicariously from others’
H5: Intra-team competition is negatively related to
experiences. Creativity and innovation are spurred
team innovativeness.
when diverse ideas are united or when new ideas in
one domain inspire or force fresh thinking in another H6: Intra-team competition is negatively related to
(Uzzi and Spiro, 2005). We thus expect that team performance.
intra-team collaboration directly enhances team
innovativeness.
2.5. Intra-team competition and
A team’s performance also benefits in a collabora-
intra-team collaboration
tive team environment. When team members col-
laborate toward a common goal, perceptions of Intra-team competition fosters a self-defensive atti-
shared fate are created and supportive behavior is tude (Amabile, 1998). Individuals competing with
promoted, whereby each group member looks out for each other focus on outperforming others and dem-
the interests of the others. Members in a collaborative onstrating their superiority (Maurer et al., 2003). As
team will consider a task from a greater variety of knowledge is deemed the most valuable asset of
viewpoints, and such broader consideration is more knowledge-based workers, people competing with
likely to uncover problems. As team members share each other are unlikely to share with each other,
valuable information and lesson learned with each thus reducing team collaboration. Competition also
other, so some similar mistakes are avoided and pit- reduces cohesion and team identification (Mael and
falls are shunned. Singh and Fleming (2009) reported Ashforth, 1992), further hurting collaboration.
that joint work reduces the probability of very poor Therefore, we have:
outcomes – because of more rigorous selection pro-
H7: Within-team competition is negatively related to
cesses – while simultaneously increasing the prob-
within-team collaboration.
ability of extremely successful outcomes – because
of greater recombinant opportunity in the search
process. We thus hypothesize:
3. Methods
H3: Intra-team collaboration is positively related to
team innovativeness. 3.1. Sample and procedures
H4: Intra-team collaboration is positively related to We tested the model and hypotheses with data col-
team performance. lected from a cross-sectional field study of
employees in R&D departments from a system inte-
gration company headquartered in Taiwan. With
2.4. Intra-team competition and team
support and help from top management teams and
effectiveness
two administrative assistants, roughly 100 R&D
R&D work is often systemic and continuous, and teams in the headquarter office were invited by mail
may consist of multiple, concurrent workflows that to participate in the survey with the offer of a small
influence each other, i.e., highly interdependent gift. Two forms of surveys were used. R&D engi-
(Mohrman, 2003). In R&D teams, each member’s neers answered questions about their perceptions of
work is dependent on others. For overall performance empowering leadership, intra-team competition, and
4 2015
C
V R&D Management
RADMA and John••,Wiley
••, 2015
& Sons Ltd © 2015
R&DRADMA and John46,
Management Wiley & Sons729
4, 2016 Ltd
Yu-Qian Zhu and Houn-Gee Chen Empowering leadership in R&D teams
Table 1. Demographic information of the sample (‘strongly disagree’) and 7 (‘strongly agree’). Differ-
Manager entiated leadership falls into Chan’s (1998) disper-
sion composition model, where within-group
Gender Female (16.7%), male (83.3%) variation conveys the substantive meaning of a con-
Tenure Average 6.06 (1.4–13.4) struct. Following Wu et al. (2010), we operationalize
Team size Average 7 (3–17) differentiated leadership with the coefficient of
variation (Allison, 1978). Because there are two
R&D engineer dimensions – encouraging self-development and par-
Gender Female (16.8%), male (83.2%) ticipative goal setting – two scores were calculated
Tenure Average 3.1 (0.1–11) for each team.
Education College (42.9%), master’s (52.1%)
Age 20–30 (47%), 30–40 (52.5%) 3.2.3. Intra-team competition
Intra-team competition was measured with Mael and
Ashforth (1992). The original scale was developed to
measure perceived competition among students
collaboration. R&D managers assessed their team’s attending the same school, and some items may not
performance and innovativeness. Team members be readily applied in the work setting. Thus, items
were matched with team manager’s self-rated perfor- were adjusted and the wording of the scale was modi-
mance and innovativeness data without revealing fied to fit the working context.
their identification. A total of 247 engineers and 54
managers responded; however, one survey come
back with incomplete data. We had a final usable 3.2.4. Intra-team collaboration
sample of 54 teams from 246 engineers and 54 man- As collaboration has been studied mostly at the
agers. Table 1 below summarizes the demographic organizational or business unit level, measures
information of the sample. of collaboration at the functional team level have
been very limited. Thus, the measures of intra-team
collaboration blended prior research from several
3.2. Measures scholars into one scale. It synthesized scale items
Measures were from prior research when available. used in Aram and Morgan (1976) for collective
Except for team performance and team innova- problem solving, Aram and Morgan (1976) for help
tiveness, all measures used a scale anchored at 1 and support, Lin et al. (2010) for collaborative
(‘strongly disagree’) and 7 (‘strongly agree’). working, and last Singh and Avital (2007) for task
coordination.
730
© 2015 RADMA and John Wiley
R&D Management 46, 4,&2016
Sons Ltd R&D Management
C 2015 RADMA
V ••, ••,&2015
and John Wiley 5
Sons Ltd
Yu-Qian Zhu and Houn-Gee Chen Empowering leadership in R&D teams
6 2015
C
V R&D Management
RADMA and John••,Wiley
••, 2015
& Sons Ltd © 2015
R&DRADMA and John46,
Management Wiley & Sons731
4, 2016 Ltd
Yu-Qian Zhu and Houn-Gee Chen Empowering leadership in R&D teams
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #1 #2 #3 #4 #1 #2 #3 #4
0.955 0.94 0.92
92 0.87 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.89 0.82 0.71 0.62
Group-focused Team
Intra-team 0.38**
empowering innovativeness
leadership 0.68** collaboration
0.32**
– 0.20**
– 0.02
Differentiated
0.28**
individual-focused Intra-team Team
empowering competition performance
0.02
leadership
Figure 2. Results of the structural equation modeling (SEM) model with latent constructs.
Notes: N = 54. Standardized factor loadings and path coefficients are presented. All factor loadings are significant at the 0.05 level.
**P < 0.01.
© 2015 RADMA
732 and John Wiley
R&D Management 46, 4,&2016
Sons Ltd R&D Management
C 2015 RADMA
V ••, ••,&2015
and John Wiley 7
Sons Ltd
Yu-Qian Zhu and Houn-Gee Chen Empowering leadership in R&D teams
collaboration, which would substantially enhance Amabile, T. M. (1998) How to kill creativity. Harvard
their team innovativeness and performance. Business Review, 76, 5, 76–87.
Second, although encouraging self-development Aram, J.D. and Morgan, C.P. (1976) The role of project
and participative goal setting are effective tools for team collaboration in R&D performance. Management
Science, 22, 10, 1127–1137.
empowering the team, managers should use these
Berson, Y. and Linton, J.D. (2005) An examination of the
tools with caution. Managers should not display
relationships between leadership style, quality, and
favoritism toward some members out of the whole employee satisfaction in R&D versus administrative
team. Otherwise, knowing that someone is getting environments. R&D Management, 35, 1, 51–60.
more than others, team members are likely to Bliese, P.D. (1998) Group size, ICC values, and group-
compete with each other for more and better oppor- level correlations: a simulation. Organizational
tunities, which will hurt intra-team collaboration, the Research Methods, 1, 355–373.
vital factor for team innovativeness and performance. Burger, N., Staake, T., Fleisch, E., and Hierold, C. (2013)
Managing technology development teams – exploring
5.3. Limitations and conclusion the case of microsytems and nanosystems. R&D Man-
agement, 43, 162–186.
As with most research, the results of this study Chan, D. (1998) Functional relations among constructs in
should be interpreted in consideration of several limi- the same content domain at different levels: a typology
tations, which highlight important avenues for future of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology,
research. First, the cross-sectional nature of the study 83, 2, 234–246.
does not allow for any conclusions regarding causal Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997) What makes teams
relationships. Future research would benefit from work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor
testing within a longitudinal design. Second, our to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–
290.
sample came from one large organization in a single
Dewett, T. (2007) Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking,
country high on collectivism; thus, our results should and employee creativity in an R&D environment. R&D
be viewed with caution when generalizing to other Management, 37, 3, 197–208.
culture (e.g., more individualism) and to organiza- Elkins, T.K. and Keller, R.T. (2003) Leadership in research
tions small and medium in size. Future research and development organizations: a literature review and
would benefit from studying different-sized organi- conceptual framework. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 4/5,
zations in different types of culture. Finally, our 587–606.
research focuses on the effects of group-focused Faraj, S. and Sambamurthy, V. (2006) Leadership of infor-
empowering leadership and differentiated individual- mation systems development projects. IEEE Transac-
focused empowering leadership on team processes tions on Engineering Management, 53, 2, 238–249.
and outcomes, while the relationship between these Gagne, M. and Deci, E.L. (2005) Self-determination theory
and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behav-
two leadership types, and the relationship between
ior, 26, 331–362.
team performance and team innovativeness, are not Gao, L., Janssen, O., and Shi, K. (2011) Leader trust and
discussed. Future research could further explore employee voice: the moderating role of empowering
these relationships to enhance our understanding of leader behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 4, 787–
the interplay between these factors. 798.
To conclude, as far as empowering team members Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981) Evaluating structural
are concerned, leaders should be advised that differ- equation models with unobservable variables and meas-
entiation between treatments of team members may urement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 1,
cause team members to compete with each other, 39–50.
which hampers team collaboration, and should be Hirst, G. and Mann, L. (2004) A model of R&D leadership
avoided when possible. Managers should emphasize and team communication: the relationship with project
performance. R&D Management, 34, 2, 147–160.
on the importance of collaboration among team
Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., and Gemuenden, H.G. (2004)
members to achieve better team performance and Inter-team coordination, project commitment, and team-
innovativeness. work in multi team R&D projects: a longitudinal study.
Organization Science, 15, 1, 38–55.
References Hofmann, D.A. and Stetzer, A. (1996) A cross-level inves-
tigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviors and acci-
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes dents. Personnel Psychology, 49, 307–339.
and Predicting Social Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Hofmann, D.A. and Stetzer, A. (1998) The role of safety
Prentice-Hall. climate and communication in accident interpretation:
Allison, P.D. (1978) Measures of inequality. American implications for learning from negative events. Academy
Sociological Review, 43, 6, 865–880. of Management Journal, 41, 644–657.
8 2015
C
V R&D Management
RADMA and John••,Wiley
••, 2015
& Sons Ltd © 2015
R&DRADMA and John46,
Management Wiley & Sons733
4, 2016 Ltd
Yu-Qian Zhu and Houn-Gee Chen Empowering leadership in R&D teams
Hulsheger, U.R., Anderson, N., and Salgado, J.F. Singh, J. and Fleming, L. (2009) Lone inventors as sources
(2009) Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a of breakthroughs: myth or reality? Management Science,
comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of 56, 1, 41–56.
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 5, 1128– Souder, W.E. and Moenaert, R.K. (1992) Integrating Mar-
1145. keting and R&D personnel within innovation projects:
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1989) Cooperation and an information uncertainty model.. Journal of Manage-
competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interac- ment Studies, 29, 4, 485–512.
tion Book Company. Stoker, J.I., Louise, J.C., Fischer, P.A.M., and de Jong,
Lin, C.-P., Wang, Y.-J., Tsai, Y.-H., and Hsu, Y.-F. (2010) R.D. (2001) Leadership and innovation: relations
Perceived job effectiveness in competition: a survey of between leadership, individual characteristics and the
virtual teams within business organizations. Computers functioning of R&D teams. International Journal of
in Human Behavior, 26, 6, 1598–1606. Human Resource Management, 12, 7, 1141–1151.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D.L., and Weingart, L.R. (2001) Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979) An integrative theory of
Maximizing cross-functional new product team’s intergroup conflict. In: Austin, W.G. and Worchel, S.
innovativeness and constraint adherence: a conflict com- (eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations.
munications perspective. Academy of Management Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole. pp. 33–47.
Journal, 44, 4, 779–793. Thamhain, H.J. (2003) Managing innovative R&D teams.
Mael, F. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992) Alumni and their alma R&D Management, 33, 3, 297–312.
mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of Thibaut, J.W. and Kelley, H.H. (2004) The Social Psychol-
organizational identification. Journal of Organizational ogy of Groups. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Behavior, 13, 2, 103–123. Publishers.
Maurer, T.J., Wrenn, K.A., Pierce, H.R., Tross, S.A., and Tjosvold, D. (1986) The dynamics of interdependence in
Collins, W.C. (2003) Beliefs about ‘improvability’ of organizations. Human Relations, 39, 517–540.
career-relevant skills: relevance to job/task analysis, Tjosvold, D., Tang, M., and West, M.A. (2004) Reflexivity
competency modeling, and learning orientation. Journal for team innovation in China: the contribution of goal
of Organizational Behavior, 24, 1, 107–131. interdependence. Group and Organizational Manage-
Mohrman, S.A. (2003) Designing work for knowledge- ment, 29, 5, 540–559.
based competition. In: Jackson, S., Hitt, M., and Denisi, Unsworth, K.L. (2001) Unpacking creativity. Academy of
A. (eds), Managing Knowledge for Sustained Competi- Management Review, 26, 2, 286–297.
tive Advantage: Designing Strategies for Effective Uzzi, B. and Spiro, J. (2005) Collaboration and creativity:
Human Resource Management. San Francisco: Jossey- the small world problem. American Journal of Sociol-
Bass, 94–126. ogy, 111, 2, 447–504.
Oldham, G.R. and Cummings, A. (1996) Employee crea- Wu, J.B., Tsui, A.S., and Kinicki, A.J. (2010) Conse-
tivity: personal and contextual factors at work. Academy quences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy
of Management Journal, 39, 3, 607–634. of Management Journal, 53, 1, 90–106.
Pearce, C.L. and Sims, H.P., Jr. (2002) Vertical versus Zhang, X.M. and Bartol, K.M. (2010) Linking empowering
shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of leadership and employee creativity: the influence of
change management teams: an examination of aversive, psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and
directive, transactional, transformational, and empower- creative process engagement. Academy of Management
ing leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Journal, 53, 1, 107–128.
Research, and Practice, 6, 172–197.
Reinartz, W.J., Haenlein, M., and Henseler, J. (2009) An Yu-Qian Zhu is Assistant Professor in the Depart-
empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance based ment of Information Management, National Taiwan
and variance-based SEM. International Journal of University of Science and Technology. She holds a
Market Research, 26, 4, 332–344. PhD in Management of Technology from National
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., and Becker, J.-M. (2014) Taiwan University. Her research interests include
SmartPLS 3. Hamburg: SmartPLS. Retrieved from
knowledge management, technology adoption, and
http://www.smartpls.com.
Sherony, K.M. and Green, S.G. (2002) Coworker
management of information system development
exchange: relationships between coworkers, leader– teams. Yu-Qian can be contacted at yuqian@
member exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of gmail.com.
Applied Psychology, 87, 542–548.
Houn-Gee Chen is Professor at the College of Man-
Shin, S. and Zhou, J. (2003) Transformational leadership,
conservation, and creativity: evidence from Korea.
agement, National Taiwan University. He earned his
Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714. PhD from the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Singh, B. and Avital, M. (2007) The impact of collabora- Prior to joining National Taiwan University, he was a
tion and competition on project performance. Proceed- faculty member at the University of Notre Dame and
ings of the International Conference on Information National Tsing Hua University. His research interests
Systems (ICIS), Montreal, Canada. include e-commerce, management information
734
© 2015 RADMA and John Wiley
R&D Management 46, 4,&2016
Sons Ltd R&D Management
C 2015 RADMA
V ••, ••,&2015
and John Wiley 9
Sons Ltd
Yu-Qian Zhu and Houn-Gee Chen Empowering leadership in R&D teams
102015R&D
C
V Management
RADMA and John ••, ••, 2015
Wiley & Sons Ltd © 2015
R&DRADMA and John46,
Management Wiley & Sons735
4, 2016 Ltd