Differential implications of team member promotive and prohibitive voice on innovation performance in research and development project teams: A dialectic perspective

• Author: Jian Liang,Crystal I.C. Farh,Rui Shu
• Published date: 01 January 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2325
• Date: 01 January 2019

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Differential implications of team member promotive and

prohibitive voice on innovation performance in research and

development project teams: A dialectic perspective

Jian Liang

1

|Rui Shu

2

|Crystal I.C. Farh

3

1

Tongji University, Shanghai, China

2

Shanghai University of Finance and

Economics, Shanghai, China

3

University of Washington, Seattle,

Washington

Correspondence

Jian Liang, Tongji University, 1500 Siping

Road, Shanghai 200092, China.

Email: jianliang@tongji.edu.cn

Funding information

National Natural Science Foundation of China,

Grant/Award Number: 71572111

Summary

How and when does team member voice facilitate team innovation? Integrating

research on member voice and a dialectic perspective of innovation, we advance a

model in which team member promotive voice enhances team innovation through

team knowledge utilization, whereas team member prohibitive voice enhances team

innovation through team reflexivity in a nonlinear fashion. We further propose that

the differential effects of team member promotive and prohibitive voice will be stron-

ger at different stages (idea generation vs. idea implementation) of the innovation

cycle. Survey data from 78 research and development project teams showed a posi-

tive indirect effect between team member promotive voice and team innovation

through team knowledge utilization, although this relationship was also mediated

through team reflexivity. Moreover, the indirect effect of team member promotive

voice on team innovation via team knowledge utilization was stronger for teams in

the idea generation stage of team innovation. Results also confirmed a nonlinear indi-

rect relationship between team member prohibitive voice and team innovation via

team reflexivity such that the positive effects of team member prohibitive voice

tapered off at high levels. Contrary to our expectations, the effects of prohibitive

voice held regardless of stage. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

KEYWORDS

innovation project stage, promotive andprohibitive voice, team innovation, team knowledge

utilization, team reflexivity

1|INTRODUCTION

Organizations increasingly rely on project teams to accelerate innova-

tion and generate competitive advantage (Wuchty, Jones, & Uzzi,

2007). In order to fuel innovation, members of project teams must

proactively express voice, that is, communicate work‐related ideas,

suggestions, concerns, or opinions (Morrison, 2011). Indeed, team

member voice has been thought of as an important input factor of

team innovation. Unless ideas for new products, processes, or proce-

dures are articulated, they can hardly be considered or carried out in

the form of innovation (Mumford, Baughman, & Sager, 2003; Rank,

Pace, & Frese, 2004). As LePine and Van Dyne (1998: 865) said,

“innovation begins with recognition and generation of novel ideas or

solutions that challenge past practices and standard operating proce-

dures.”Despite theoretical claims and some empirical evidence that

team member voice facilitates team innovation (e.g., Li, Liao, Tangirala,

& Firth, 2017), there are still several reasons why the relationship

between team member voice and team innovation merit additional

investigation. In this study, we extend existing work by addressing

how and when both team member promotive and prohibitive voice

contribute to team innovation.

Team innovation is a complex process fraught with seemingly

contradictory demands. The team must not only explore creative ideas

that depart from the status quo but also exploit existing knowledge

Received: 5 December 2016 Revised: 30 July 2018 Accepted: 17 August 2018

DOI: 10.1002/job.2325

J Organ Behav. 2019;40:91–104. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 91