Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-06
When do teams generate valuable inventions? The moderating role of invention integrality on the effects of expertise similarity,network cohesion,and gender diversity
Research has demonstrated that certain team composition factors—high expertise similarity, high network cohesion, and mixed‐gender teams—have predominantly negative effects on the teams’ invention outcomes. Yet these factors have also been shown to improve team coordination, which should (in theory) lead to better invention outcomes. We address this tension by highlighting the need to consider the invention's integrality, which increases task interdependencies among team members and thereby strengthens the positive relationship between team coordination and invention value. We hypothesize that (i) the main effects of these team composition factors reduce a team's invention value but, more importantly, that (ii) invention integrality positively moderates those effects. We support these claims with evidence from utility patent data filed in the United States during the period 1983–2015.
AlanY.GaoG. P.GaurV. (2014). Does inventory productivity predict future stock returns? A retailing industry perspective. Management Science, 60(10), 2416–2434. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1897
2.
AnconaD. G.CaldwellD. F. (1992). Demography and design: predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.321
3.
BaerM.AbhijeetK.VaderaR.LeendersT. A. J.OldhamG. R. (2014). Intergroup competition as a double‐edged sword: How sex composition regulates the effects of competition on group creativity. Organization Science, 25(3), 892–908. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0878
4.
BaldwinC. Y.ClarkK. B. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity. MIT Press.
5.
BaldwinC. Y.vonHippelE. (2011). Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science, 22(6), 1399–1417. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0618
6.
BalsmeierB.AssafM.ChesebroT.FierroG.JohnsonK.JohnsonS.Guan‐ChengL.LuckS.O'ReaganD.YehB.ZangG.FlemingL.LiG. C.LückS.O'ReaganD.YehB.ZangG.FlemingL. (2018). Machine learning and natural language processing on the patent corpus: Data, tools, and new measures. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 27, 535–553.
7.
BardhanI.KrishnanV. V.LinS. (2013). Team dispersion, information technology, and project performance. Production and Operations Management, 22(6), 1478–1493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937‐5956.2012.01366.x
8.
BercovitzJ.FeldmanM. (2011). The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography. Research Policy, 40(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.008
9.
BessenJ. (2008). The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy, 37(5), 932–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.02.005
10.
BoscaljonB.FilbeckG.SmabyT. (2006). Information content of business methods patents. The Financial Review, 41(3), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐6288.2006.00148.x
11.
BradleyB. H.PostlethwaiteB. E.KlotzA. C.HamdaniM. R.BrownK. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024200
12.
BrunsH. C. (2013). Working alone together: Coordination in collaboration across domains of expertise. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0756
13.
BurtR. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787
14.
ChanT. H.MihmJ.SosaM. (2021). Revisiting the role of collaboration in creating breakthrough inventions. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 23(5), 1005–1024.
15.
ChanT. H.MihmJ.SosaM. E. (2018). On styles in product design: An analysis of U.S. Design patents. Management Science, 64(3), 1230–1249. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2653
16.
ChandrasekaranA.MishraA. (2012). Task design, team context, and psychological safety: An empirical analysis of R&D projects in high technology organizations. Production and Operations Management, 21(6), 977–996.
17.
ColferL. J.BaldwinC. Y. (2016). The mirroring hypothesis: Theory, evidence, and exceptions. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(5), 709–738. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtw027
18.
DesyllasP.SakoM. (2013). Profiting from business model innovation: Evidence from pay‐as‐you‐drive auto insurance. Research Policy, 42(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.008
19.
DevineD. J.ClaytonL. D.PhilipsJ. L.DunfordB. B.MelnerS. B. (1999). Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30(6), 678–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649649903000602
20.
DingW. W.LevinS. G.StephanP. E.WinklerA. E. (2010). The impact of information technology on academic scientists’ productivity and collaboration patterns. Management Science, 56(9), 1439–1461. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1195
21.
DingW. W.MurrayF.StuartT. E. (2006). Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science, 313(5787), 665–667. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1124832
22.
EdmondsonA. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
23.
FaberR. C. (2001). Landis on mechanics of patent claim drafting, (5th ed.). Practising Law Institute.
24.
Fernandez‐MateoI.KaplanS. (2018). Gender and organization science: Introduction to a virtual special issue. Organization Science, 29(6), 1229–1236. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1249
25.
FixsonS. K.KhachatryanD.LeeW. (2017). Technological uncertainty and firm boundaries: The moderating effect of knowledge modularity. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 64(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2016.2638847
26.
FixsonS. K.ParkJ. K. (2008). The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure. Research Policy, 37(8), 1296–1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.026
FlemingL.SorensonO. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 30(7), 1019–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048‐7333(00)00135‐9
29.
FletcherJ. K. (1998). Relational practice: A feminist reconstruction of work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7(2), 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/105649269872012
30.
FrazierP. A.TixA. P.BarronK. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0167.51.1.115
31.
GebertD.BoernerS.KearneyE. (2007). Cross‐functionality and innovation in new product development teams: A dilemmatic structure and its consequences for the management of diversity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(4), 431–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320600826314
32.
GilsonL. L.ShalleyC. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30(4), 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.07.001
33.
GirotraK.TerwieschC.UlrichK. T. (2010). Idea generation and the quality of the best idea. Management Science, 56(4), 591–605. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1144
34.
GokpinarB.HoppW. J.IravaniS. M. (2010). The impact of misalignment of organizational structure and product architecture on quality in complex product development. Management Science, 56(3), 468–484. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1117
35.
GokpinarB.HoppW. J.IravaniS. M. (2013). In‐house globalization: The role of globally distributed design and product architecture on product development performance. Production and Operations Management, 22(6), 1509–1523. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12079
36.
GongY.CheungS. Y.WangM.HuangJ. C. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process for creativity: Integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological safety perspectives. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1611–1633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380250
37.
GreeneW. H. (2008). Econometric analysis, (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
38.
HallB. H.JaffeA. B.TrajtenbergM. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38.
39.
HallJ. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85(4), 845–857. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.85.4.845
40.
HargadonA. B.BechkyB. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science. 17(4), 484–500.
41.
HargadonA.SuttonR. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716–749. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393655
42.
HarveyS. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–343. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0224
43.
HoeglM.GemuendenH. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.435.10635
44.
HoislK.MarianiM. (2017). It's a man's job: Income and the gender gap in industrial research. Management Science, 63(3), 766–790. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2357
45.
HuckmanR. S.StaatsB. R. (2011). Fluid tasks and fluid teams: The impact of diversity in experience and team familiarity on team performance. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 13(3), 310–328.
46.
JensenK.KovácsB.SorensonO. (2018). Gender differences in obtaining and maintaining patent rights. Nature Biotechnology, 36(4), 307–309. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4120
47.
JoshiA. (2014). By whom and when Is women's expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(2), 202–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214528331
48.
KamradB.SchmidtG.ÜlküS. (2017). In pursuit of product modularity: Impediments and stimulants. California Management Review, 59(4), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125617722793
49.
KavadiasS.SommerS. C. (2009). The effects of problem structure and team diversity on brainstorming effectiveness. Management Science, 55(12), 1899–1913. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1079
50.
KeckS.TangW. (2018). Gender composition and group confidence judgment: The perils of all‐male groups. Management Science, 64(12), 5877–5898. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2881
51.
KeckS.TangW. (2021). Elaborating or aggregating? The joint effects of group decision‐making structure and systematic errors on the value of group interactions. Management Science, 67(7), 4287–4309. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3688
52.
KennedyC. (2003). Gender differences in committee decision‐making: Process and outputs in an experimental setting. Women and Politics, 25(3), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1300/J014v25n03_02
53.
KlineP.PetkovaN.WilliamsH.ZidarO. (2019). Who profits from patents? Rent‐sharing at innovative firms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(3), 1343–1404. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz011
54.
KoganL.PapanikolaouD.SeruA.StoffmanN. (2017). Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(2), 665–712. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw040
55.
KurtzbergT. R.AmabileT. M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team‐level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_06
56.
LakhaniK. R.Lifshitz‐AssafH.TushmanM. L. (2013). Open innovation and organizational boundaries: Task decomposition, knowledge distribution and the locus of innovation (pp. 355–382). In A.Grandori (Ed.), Handbook of economic organization. Edward Elgar Publishing.
57.
LanjouwJ. O.SchankermanM. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. The Economic Journal, 114(495), 441–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐0297.2004.00216.x
58.
LingoE. L.MahonyS. O. (2010). Nexus work : Brokerage on creative projects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 47–81. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.1.47
59.
LiuH.MihmJ.SosaM. E. (2018). Where do stars come from? The role of star vs. nonstar collaborators in creative settings. Organization Science, 29(6), 1149–1169. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1223
60.
LovejoyW. S.SinhaA. (2010). Efficient structures for innovative social networks. Management Science, 56(7), 1127–1145. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1168
61.
LovelaceK.ShapiroD. L.WeingartL. R. (2001). Maximizing cross‐functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 779–793. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069415
62.
MalhotraA.MajchrzakA.CarmanR.LottV. (2001). Radical innovation without collocation: A case study at Boeing‐Rocketdyne. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 229–249. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250930
63.
MannixE.NealeM. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529‐1006.2005.00022.x
MooreK. A. (2005). Worthless patents. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 20, 1521.
66.
NewmanM. E. J. (2006). Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(23), 8577–8582. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601602103
67.
NielsenM. W.AlegriaS.BörjesonL.Falk‐krzesinskiH. J.JoshiA.LeaheyE.Smith‐doerrL.WoolleyA. W. (2017). Gender diversity leads to better science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(13), E2796.
68.
NielsenM. W.BlochC. W.SchiebingerL. (2018). Making gender diversity work for scientific discovery and innovation. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(10), 726–734. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562‐018‐0433‐1
69.
NielsenM. W.BörjesonL. (2019). Gender diversity in the management field: Does it matter for research outcomes?Research Policy, 48(7), 1617–1632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.006
70.
Perry‐SmithJ. E.MannucciP. V. (2017). From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0462
71.
Perry‐SmithJ. E.ShalleyC. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040691
72.
PisanoG. P.VergantiR. (2008). Which kind of collaboration is right for you?Harvard Business Review, 86(12), 1–7.
73.
RahmaniM.RoelsG.KarmarkarU. S. (2017). Collaborative work dynamics in projects with co‐production. Production and Operations Management, 26(4), 686–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12670
74.
SanchezR.MahoneyJ. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171107
75.
SchillingM. A. (2000). Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 312–334. https://doi.org/10.2307/259016
76.
SchillingM. A.SteensmaH. K. (2001). The use of modular organizational forms: An industry‐level analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1149–1168. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069394
77.
SiemsenE.RothA. V.BalasubramanianS.AnandG. (2009). The influence of psychological safety and confidence in knowledge on employee knowledge sharing. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 11(3), 429–447. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1080.0233
78.
SimonH. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.
79.
SinghJ.FlemingL. (2010). Lone inventors as sources of breakthroughs: Myth or reality?Management Science, 56(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1072
80.
SkiltonP. F.DooleyK. J. (2010). The effects of repeat collaboration on creative abrasion. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 118–134.
81.
SosaM. E. (2011). Where do creative interactions come from? The role of tie content and social networks. Organization Science, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0519
82.
SosaM. E.GargiuloM.RowlesC. (2015). Can informal communication networks disrupt coordination in new product development projects?Organization Science, 26(4), 1059–1078. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0974
83.
StataCorp LLC. (2021). Partial and semipartial correlation coefficients. In Stata reference manual (13th ed., pp. 1–3). Stata Press.
84.
SteffensP.TerjesenS.DavidssonP. (2011). Birds of a feather get lost together: New venture team composition and performance. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 727–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187‐011‐9358‐z
85.
SuttonR. I.HargadonA. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 685–718. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393872
86.
ThompsonJ. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. McGraw‐Hill.
87.
TortorielloM.McEvilyB.KrackhardtD. (2015). Being a catalyst of innovation: The role of knowledge diversity and network closure. Organization Science, 26(2), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0942
88.
ÜlküS.SchmidtG. M. (2011). Matching product architecture and supply chain configuration. Production and Operations Management, 20(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937‐5956.2010.01136.x
89.
UlrichK. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy, 24(3), 419–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048‐7333(94)00775‐3
90.
UlrichK.EppingerS. (1999). Product design and development. McGraw Hill.
91.
USPTO. (2010). Manual of patent examination procedures (8th ed.). U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
92.
USPTO. (2019). Progress and potential: A profile of women inventors on US patents (Technical Report). U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
93.
UzziB.SpiroJ. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447–504. https://doi.org/10.1086/432782
94.
VakiliK.KaplanS. (2020). Organizing for innovation: A contingency view on innovative team configuration. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 1159–1183.
95.
Van AlstyneM.BrynjolfssonE. (2005). Global village or cyber‐Balkans? Modeling and measuring the integration of electronic communities. Management Science, 51(6), 851–868. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0363
96.
vanKnippenbergD.SchippersM. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 515–541. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546
97.
vonHippelE. (1990). Task partitioning: An innovation process variable. Research Policy, 19(5), 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048‐7333(90)90049‐C
98.
vonHippelE. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.40.4.429
99.
vonHippelE. (1998). Economics of product development by users: The impact of “sticky” local information. Management Science, 44(5), 629–644. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.5.629
100.
WatsonW. E.KumarK.MichaelsenL. K. (1993). Cultural diversity's impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 590–602. https://doi.org/10.2307/256593
101.
WilliamsM.PolmanE. (2015). Is it me or her? How gender composition evokes interpersonally sensitive behavior on collaborative cross‐boundary projects. Organization Science, 26(2), 334–355. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0941
102.
WooldridgeJ. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press.
103.
WoolleyA. W.ChabrisC. F.PentlandA.HashmiN.MaloneT. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147
104.
WuL.WangD.EvansJ. A. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566(7744), 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586‐019‐0941‐9
105.
WuchtyS.JonesB. F.UzziB. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099
106.
YayavaramS.AhujaG. (2008). Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge‐base malleability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(2), 333–362. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.53.2.333
107.
YayavaramS.ChenW. ‐ R. (2015). Changes in firm knowledge couplings and firm innovation performance: The moderating role of technology complexity. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2218
