|
Article Excerpt
One of the most studied models of innovative climates is West's (1990) team climate for innovation model, where four climate factors are proposed as essential for team innovation to occur: (1) clearly defined, shared, valued and attainable visions; (2) an environment perceived as non-threatening, in which it is safe to present new ideas and improved ways of doing things; (3) a shared concern with excellence in quality of task performance characterized by evaluations, modifications, control systems and critical appraisal; and (4) expectation, approval and practical support of attempts to introduce new and improved ways of doing things.
This model has been empirically supported in many studies with different types of groups, such as health care teams (e.g. Anderson & West, 1998; Poulton & West, 1999; Ragazzoni, Baiardi, Zotti, Anderson, & West, 2002), management teams (e. g. West & Anderson, 1996) and industrial companies (e.g. Burningham & West, 1995). Most of the studies have aimed at testing factor structure, internal consistency of factors or criterion validity of the team climate model, demonstrating acceptable results (Agrell & Gustafson, 1994; Anderson & West, 1998; Burningham & West, 1995; Kivimaki et al, 1997; Loo & Loewen, 2002; Mathisen, Einarsen, Jorstad, & Bronnick, 2004; Ragazzoni et al., 2002; West & Anderson, 1996; West, Smith, Feng, & Lawthom, 1998). However, although West's (1990) climate for innovation model is a team-level model, most studies of its psychometric properties have been conducted on an individual level (Agrell & Gustafson, 1994; Kivimaki & Elovainio, 1999; Kivimaki et al., 1997; Loo & Loewen, 2002; Ragazzoni et al., 2002). Yet, a concept studied on the individual level need not be isomorphic to the corresponding team-level concept, and there is, therefore, a risk of incorrectly drawing inferences at the team level when studying only the individual level (the atomistic fallacy; see Kozlowski and Klein 2000). On the other hand, while West's model is a team-level model, it is most likely that both individual idiosyncrasies as well as team-level factors influence the team members' perception of the team climate, and a two-level approach may therefore best capture the two-level nature of the concept. In the present study, West's team level climate for innovation model will therefore be studied using a multi-level modelling approach. By way of introduction, we present an overview of the theoretical perspectives and empirical findings that exist to date on the issue of level concerning the team climate for innovation model.
Theoretical perspectives and empirical findings regarding team-level climate for Innovation
Anderson and West (1998) argue that the appropriate level of analysis at which to study shared perceptions of an innovative climate is the proximal work group, which is defined as 'either the permanent or semipermanent team to which individuals are assigned, whom they interact with regularly in order to perform work-related tasks' (Anderson & West, 1998, p. 236). People in proximal work groups are exposed to common events and processes. They interact, sharing interpretations, which over time may converge to form consensual views of the team climate. Processes such as attraction, selection, attrition, and socialization may also operate to reduce the variability of individual perceptions, facilitating common experiences of the climate in a group (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Thus, from a theoretical perspective, individual climate perceptions can be manifested as coherent group phenomena.
The team climate for innovation is usually studied empirically by aggregating individual perceptions of climate to the team level, using the group mean to represent the team level. Such a consensus model depends upon within-group agreement, since it is only through this agreement that the aggregate phenomenon achieves validity (Hofman, 2002). Several studies of West's team climate for innovation model have taken team member agreement into consideration by calculating the [r.sub.wg] (Agrell & Gustafson, 1994; Anderson & West, 1998; Carter & West, 1998; Curral, Forrester, Dawson, & West, 2001; West & Anderson, 1996; West et al., 1998). In general, the [r.sub.wg] analyses have revealed satisfactory levels of agreement within teams for all team climate for innovation factors (above the minimum acceptable level of .70). Some studies of the team climate for innovation model have also applied between-group variability tests to investigate whether team climate is truly a team-level phenomenon and not a broader perception of organizational life in general, and the authors of these studies performed one-way ANOVAs showing statistically significant F ratios (Anderson & West, 1998; West & Anderson, 1996; West et al., 1998). The results from the above-mentioned studies justify the aggregation of individual perceptions of innovative climate to the team level and they also indicate that it is more appropriate to aggregate team climate for innovation to the team level than to the organizational level.
The above argument notwithstanding, there is still uncertainty concerning the proportion of the total variance in team climate for innovation that is accounted for at the individual and the team level, respectively. Perceptions of team climate for innovation may be explained by subjective factors independent of the team, such as the individual's personality and experiences outside the team on one hand, and by phenomena shared among the team members, such as commitment, common tasks and experiences on the other. For the team-level model of climate for innovation to be valid, a large part of the variance should be explained at the team level, and in the present study we will therefore use multi-level modelling to investigate the variance explained at the team level. We expect a considerable portion of the variance to be explained at the team level, but also that the individual level will account for a substantial amount of the variance (Hypothesis 1).
There is also still uncertainty as to what extent the factor structure of the team climate for innovation model will be similar when factor analysis is performed at the individual level and the team...
|
