Teaming in biotechnology commercialisation: The diversity-performance connection and how university programmes can make a difference
Tóm tắt
Collaboration across disciplines in the sciences is on the rise. Yet, practitioner papers abound that describe a range of dysfunctional team experiences, especially in contexts where science and business intersect. A critical issue currently preventing successful bioscience commercialisation is management's lack of ‘soft skills,’ such as the ability to direct complex and functionally diverse teams to achieve productive outcomes. Our paper first reviews the diversity and teaming literature from several disciplinary perspectives in order to better understand how different types of diversity affect team outcomes and processes, as well as how to create higher functioning teams to engage in bioscience technology commercialisation. Research suggests that the ‘surface-level’ diversity issues associated with demographic and disciplinary differences may diminish over time, as team members move beyond initial stereotypes and gain more knowledge about their fellow group members. However, problems stemming from ‘deep-level’ diversity such as personality and values differences are more difficult to overcome and require a high degree of interaction frequency among team members, as well as strong communication skills. Going beyond the literature review, we demonstrate how these ‘lessons learned’ can be addressed through bioscience entrepreneurship education, using a case study of a Midwestern university programme funded by an NSF Partnerships for Innovation grant.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Meyers, A. and Hurley, P. (2008) From the classroom: Bioentrepreneurship education programmes in the United States. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology 14: 2–12.
Tsui, A. S. and Gutek, B. A. (1999) Demographic Differences in Organizations: Current Research and Future Directions. Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Greguras, G., Robie, C., Born, M. and Koenigs, R. (2007) A social relations analysis of team performance ratings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 14: 434–448.
Colquitt, J. and Jackson, C. (2006) Justice in teams: The context sensitivity of justice rules across individual and team contexts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36: 868–899.
Fiore, S. (2008) Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: How the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Research 39: 251–277.
Walfe, R. (2002) Cross-(dys) functional teams. Applied Clinical Trials (August): 32–33.
Jackson, S. E., May, K. E. and Whitney, K. (1995) Understanding the Dynamics of Diversity in Decision-making Teams. In: R.A. Guzzo and E. Salas (eds.) Team Decisions on Making Effectiveness in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 204–261.
Harrison, D., Price, K., Gavin, J. and Florey, A. (2002) Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Review 45: 1029–1045.
Williams, K. and O'Reilly, C. (1998) Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior 20: 77–140.
Mohammed, S. and Angell, L. (2004) Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25: 1015–1039.
Lichtenstein, R., Alexander, J., McCarthy, J. and Wells, R. (2004) Status differences in cross-functional teams: Effects on individual member participation, job satisfaction, and intent to quit. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 45: 322–335.
Yeh, Y. and Chou, H. (2005) Team composition and learning behaviors in cross-functional teams. Social Behavior and Personality 33: 391–402.
Hennessey, P. (1999) No more silos. Training & Development 53–54: 32–37.
Phillips, K., Northcraft, G. and Neale, M. (2006) Surface-level diversity and decision-making in groups: When does deep-level similarity help? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9: 467–482.
Goldberg, L. (1981) Language and Individual Differences: The Search for Universals in Personality Lexicons. In: L. Wheeler (ed.) Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 1. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 141–165.
Barrick, M., Stewart, G., Neubert, M. and Mount, M. (1998) Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology 83: 377–391.
Trimmer, K., Domino, M. and Blanton, J. (2002) The impact of personality diversity on conflict in ISD teams. Journal of Computer Information Systems 42 (Summer): 7–14.
Dose, J. (1999) The diversity of diversity: Work values effects on formative team processes. Human Resource Management Review 9: 83–108.
Rokeach, M. (1968) Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Einstein, A. (1979) Quoted in Forbes, 3 September: p. 152.
Bourgeois, L. (1980) Performance and consensus. Strategic Management Journal 1: 227–248.
Colquitt, J., Conlon, D., Wesson, M., Porter, C. and Ng, K. (2001) Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 425–445.
Flaherty, S. and Moss, S. (2007) The impact of personality and team context on the relationship between workplace injustice and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37: 2549–2575.
Goldberg, L. (1999) A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe 7: 7–28.
Anderson, N. and West, M. (1998) Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior 19: 235–258.