ELS-51306 Building Entrepreneurial Teams
Literature Summary
P1: Hülsheger et al. (2009)
Team-Level Predictors of Innovation at Work: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis
Spanning Three Decades of Research
Perspective applied to team learning: psychological, sociological and innovation.
Main conclusions: table 3
o Team process variables conducive to innovation: external and internal
communication; vision; support for innovation; task orientation; cohesion.
o Team input variables somewhat conducive to innovation: goal interdependence; job
relevant diversity; team size.
o Relationships are moderated by measurement level and measurement method.
How does article help to reach better understanding of teams: importance of external weak
ties.
Relationship to IPO model: focus on Input, Process and Outcome
o Input: goal interdependence. Team input variables have small and variable
relationships
o Process: communication, especially external communication. Team process variables
have substantial relationships.
o Measurement: measurement techniques should match the level interested in. Self-
perceived measures are less reliable
The elements required for a team to function the best in an innovative way:
- Working climate is open for change and error friendly
- Shared, visionary goals
- Interdependence in reaching goals
- Internal and external communication
Main conclusions (table 3):
1
, P2: Schjoedt & Kraus (2009)
Entrepreneurial teams: definition and performance factors
Perspective applied to team learning:
Main conclusions: ‘strong association between higher corporate success and team-created
ventures.’
How does article help to reach better understanding of teams:
Relationship to IPO model:
Definition entrepreneurial team: ‘two or more persons who have an interest, both financial
and otherwise, in and commitment to a venture’s future and success; whose work is
interdependent in the pursuit of common goals and venture success; who are accountable to
the entrepreneurial team and for the venture; who are considered to be at the executive level
with executive responsibility in the early phases of the venture, including founding and
prestart up; and who are seen as a social entity by themselves and by others.’
Team homogeneity and team heterogeneity:
- Homogeneous teams in stable environments: less conflict -> groupthink
- Heterogeneous teams in turbulent environments: more different ideas and more
conflict -> takes time.
Challenge: finding the right balance between team homogeneity and heterogeneity.
P3: Decuyper at al. (2010)
Grasping the dynamic complexity of team
learning
Perspective applied to team learning:
psychological
Main conclusions: teams are dynamic and
complex. Table 2. Process is connected to
entrepreneurial learning by doing -> team
activity.
How does article help to reach better
understanding of teams: difference groups and
teams
Relationship to IPO model: focus on Input,
Process and Outcome.
o Input: (sub)system and suprasystem
o Process: boundary crossing, team
reflexivity; team activity
o Outcome: adaptive, generative or transformative learning
Research aim: answering the current lack of integration by developing a theoretical
framework for team learning that integrates existing theoretical conceptions and empirical
findings. Also, discovering factors that influence team learning.
Conclusions: team learning is ‘a compilation of team-level processes that circularly generate
change or improvement for teams, team members and organizations.’ It is dynamic and
complex.
2
Literature Summary
P1: Hülsheger et al. (2009)
Team-Level Predictors of Innovation at Work: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis
Spanning Three Decades of Research
Perspective applied to team learning: psychological, sociological and innovation.
Main conclusions: table 3
o Team process variables conducive to innovation: external and internal
communication; vision; support for innovation; task orientation; cohesion.
o Team input variables somewhat conducive to innovation: goal interdependence; job
relevant diversity; team size.
o Relationships are moderated by measurement level and measurement method.
How does article help to reach better understanding of teams: importance of external weak
ties.
Relationship to IPO model: focus on Input, Process and Outcome
o Input: goal interdependence. Team input variables have small and variable
relationships
o Process: communication, especially external communication. Team process variables
have substantial relationships.
o Measurement: measurement techniques should match the level interested in. Self-
perceived measures are less reliable
The elements required for a team to function the best in an innovative way:
- Working climate is open for change and error friendly
- Shared, visionary goals
- Interdependence in reaching goals
- Internal and external communication
Main conclusions (table 3):
1
, P2: Schjoedt & Kraus (2009)
Entrepreneurial teams: definition and performance factors
Perspective applied to team learning:
Main conclusions: ‘strong association between higher corporate success and team-created
ventures.’
How does article help to reach better understanding of teams:
Relationship to IPO model:
Definition entrepreneurial team: ‘two or more persons who have an interest, both financial
and otherwise, in and commitment to a venture’s future and success; whose work is
interdependent in the pursuit of common goals and venture success; who are accountable to
the entrepreneurial team and for the venture; who are considered to be at the executive level
with executive responsibility in the early phases of the venture, including founding and
prestart up; and who are seen as a social entity by themselves and by others.’
Team homogeneity and team heterogeneity:
- Homogeneous teams in stable environments: less conflict -> groupthink
- Heterogeneous teams in turbulent environments: more different ideas and more
conflict -> takes time.
Challenge: finding the right balance between team homogeneity and heterogeneity.
P3: Decuyper at al. (2010)
Grasping the dynamic complexity of team
learning
Perspective applied to team learning:
psychological
Main conclusions: teams are dynamic and
complex. Table 2. Process is connected to
entrepreneurial learning by doing -> team
activity.
How does article help to reach better
understanding of teams: difference groups and
teams
Relationship to IPO model: focus on Input,
Process and Outcome.
o Input: (sub)system and suprasystem
o Process: boundary crossing, team
reflexivity; team activity
o Outcome: adaptive, generative or transformative learning
Research aim: answering the current lack of integration by developing a theoretical
framework for team learning that integrates existing theoretical conceptions and empirical
findings. Also, discovering factors that influence team learning.
Conclusions: team learning is ‘a compilation of team-level processes that circularly generate
change or improvement for teams, team members and organizations.’ It is dynamic and
complex.
2
