The individual and joint effects of process control and process-based rewards on new product performance and job satisfaction

  1. Pilar Carbonell 1
  2. Ana I. Rodríguez-Escudero 2
  1. 1 York University (Canadá)
    info

    York University (Canadá)

    Toronto, Canadá

    ROR https://ror.org/05fq50484

  2. 2 Universidad de Valladolid
    info

    Universidad de Valladolid

    Valladolid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01fvbaw18

Revista:
Business Research Quarterly

ISSN: 2340-9444,  2340-9436

Año de publicación: 2016

Volumen: 19

Número: 1

Páginas: 26-39

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1016/J.BRQ.2015.04.001 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Business Research Quarterly

Resumen

Un problema importante que enfrentan los gerentes de innovación es cómo ejercer un control administrativo adecuado sobre los equipos de desarrollo de nuevos productos (NPD) para garantizar que se cumplan los objetivos del proyecto. El estudio actual avanza la investigación sobre este tema mediante el análisis de los efectos individuales y conjuntos del control de procesos y las recompensas basadas en procesos sobre la satisfacción laboral y cuatro medidas de rendimiento de nuevos productos. Los hallazgos de nuestro estudio revelan que el control del proceso y las recompensas basadas en el proceso pueden tener efectos positivos o negativos según el tipo de resultado de desempeño considerado. Por lo tanto, el control del proceso es beneficioso para la calidad de los nuevos productos, pero perjudica el cumplimiento del presupuesto, el cumplimiento del cronograma y la satisfacción laboral del equipo. Curiosamente, nuestros resultados sugieren efectos opuestos para las recompensas basadas en procesos. En cuanto a sus efectos conjuntos,

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aiken L.S., West S.G. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions 1991, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
  • Aime F., Meyer C.J., Humphrey S. Legitimacy of team rewards: analyzing legitimacy as a condition for the effectiveness of tem incentives designs. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63:60-66.
  • Akgün A.E., Keskin H., Byrne J.C. Procedural justice climate in new product development teams: Antecedents and consequences. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 2010, 27(7):1096-1111.
  • Alegre J., Chiva R. Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance: an empirical test. Technovation 2008, 28:315-326.
  • Amabile T.M. The Social Psychology of Creativity 1983, Springer-Verlag, New York.
  • Anderson J.C., Oliver R.L. Perspectives on behavior-based versus outcome-based sales force control systems. J. Mark. 1987, 51(October):76-88.
  • Armstrong J.S., Overton T.S. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Mark. Res. 1977, 14(3):396-402.
  • Atuahene-Gima K., Murray J. Antecedents and outcomes of marketing strategy comprehensiveness. J. Mark. 2004, 68(4):33-46.
  • Bagozzi R.P., Yi Y., Phillips L.W. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Adm. Sci. Q. 1991, 36(1):421-458.
  • Barczak G., Wilemon D. Team member experience in new product development: views form the trenches. R&D Manage. 2003, 33:463-479.
  • Bonner J.M., Ruekert R.W., Walker O.C. Upper management control of new product development projects and project performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 2002, 19:233-245.
  • Brockner J., Wiesenfeld B. An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychol. Bull. 1996, 120(2):189-208.
  • Burroughs J.E., Dahl D.W., Moreau C.P., Chattopadhyay A., Gorn G.J. Facilitating and rewarding creativity during new product development. J. Mark. 2011, 75(4):53-67.
  • Carbonell P., Rodríguez A.I. The impact of market characteristics and innovation speed on perceptions of positional advantage and new product performance. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2006, 23(1):1-12.
  • Carbonell P., Rodríguez A.I. Management control, role expectations and job satisfaction of new product development teams: the moderating effect of participative decision-making. Ind. Mark. Manage. 2013, 42(2):248-259.
  • Challagalla G., Shervani T.A. Dimensions and types of supervisory control: effects on salesperson performance and satisfaction. J. Mark. 1996, 60(January):89-105.
  • Challagalla G., Shervani T.A. A measurement model of the dimensions and types of output and behavior control: an empirical test in a sales force context. J. Bus. Res. 1997, 39:159-172.
  • Chang T.J., Yeh S.P., Yeh I.J. The effects of joint reward systems in new product development. Int. J. Manpower 2007, 28(3/4):276-297.
  • Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 1988, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ. second ed.
  • Colquitt J.A., Colon D.E., Wesson M.J., Porter C.L., Ng K.Y. Justice at the millennium: a meta-analysis review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86:425-445.
  • Cooper R.G. Winning at New Products: Creating Value Through Innovation 2011, Basic Books, NY. fourth ed.
  • Dayan M., Colak M. The role of procedural justice in the new product development process. Eur. J. Innov. Manage. 2008, 11(2):199-218.
  • Echambadi R., Hess J.D. Mean-centering does not alleviate collinerarity problems in moderated multiple regression models. Mark. Sci. 2007, 26(3):438-445.
  • Ernst H., Teichert T. The R and D/marketing interface and single informant bias in NPD research: an illustration of a benchmarking case study. Technovation 1998, 18(12):721-739.
  • Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A.G., Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social behavioral and biomedical science. Behav. Res. Method 2007, 39(2):175-191.
  • Fornell C., Larcker D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18(1):39-50.
  • García N., Sanzo M.J., Trespalacios J.A. New product internal performance and market performance: evidence from Spanish firms regarding the role of trust, interfunctional integration, and innovation type. Technovation 2008, 28:713-725.
  • Garvin D. Competing on the eight dimensions of quality. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1987, 65(6):101-110.
  • Hartline M.D., Ferrell O.C. The management of customer-contact service employees: an empirical investigation. J. Mark. 1996, 60:52-70.
  • Hayes A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. A Regression-based Approach 2013, The Guilford Press, New York.
  • Hoegl M., Weinkauf K., Gemuenden H.G. Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: a longitudinal study. Organ. Sci. 2004, 15(1):38-55.
  • Illieva J., Baron S., Healy N.M. Online surveys in marketing research: pros and cons. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2002, 44(3):361-382.
  • Im S., Nakata C. Crafting an environment to foster integration in new product teams. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2008, 25:164-172.
  • Janssen O. How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful. J. Organ. Behav. 2004, 25(2):201-215.
  • Jaworski B.J. Toward a theory of marketing control: environmental context control types and consequences. J. Mark. 1988, 52:23-39.
  • Jaworski B.J., MacInnis D.J. Marketing jobs and management controls: toward a framework. J. Mark. Res. 1989, 26:406-419.
  • Jaworski B.J., Stathakopoulos V., Krishnan H.S. Control combinations in marketing: conceptual framework and empirical evidence. J. Mark. 1993, 57:57-93.
  • Kessler E.H., Bierly P.E. Is faster really better? An empirical test of the implication of innovation speed. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 2002, 49(1):2-12.
  • Kirsch L.J. Portfolios of control modes and IS project management. Inf. Syst. Res. 1997, 8(3):215-240.
  • Lee Y., O'Connor G.C. The impact of communication strategy on launching new products: the moderating role of product innovativeness. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 2003, 20(1):4-21.
  • Li C.-R., Chu C.-P., Lin C.-J. The contingent value of exploratory and exploitative learning for new product development performance. Ind. Mark. Manage. 2010, 39(7):1186-1197.
  • Lindell M.K., Whitney D.J. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86(1):114-121.
  • Lukas B.A., Menon A. New product quality: intended and unintended consequences of new product development speed. J. Bus. Res. 2004, 57:1258-1264.
  • Menon A., Lukas B.A. Antecedents and outcomes of new product development speed: a propositional inventory germane. Eur. J. Mark. 2004, 38(1/2):209-223.
  • Olsen S.B. Choosing between internet and mail survey modes for choice experiment surveys considering non-market goods. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 44(4):591-610.
  • Omta S.W., Bouter L.M., van Engelen J.M. Management control of biomedical research and pharmaceutical innovation. Technovation 1997, 17(4):167-179.
  • Podsakoff P.M., Bommer W.H., Podsakoff N.P., MacKenzie S.B. Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: a meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2006, 99:113-142.
  • Podsakoff P.M., Mackenzie S.B., Lee J.Y., Podsakoff N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88:879-903.
  • Podsakoff N.P., Podsakoff P.M., Kuskova V.V. Dispelling misconceptions and providing guidelines for leader reward and punishment behavior. Bus. Horiz. 2010, 53:291-303.
  • Poskela J., Martinsuo M. Management control and strategic renewal in the front end of innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 2009, 26:671-684.
  • Ramaswami S.N. Marketing controls and dysfunctional employee behaviors: a test of traditional and contingency theory postulates. J. Mark. 1996, 60(2):105-121.
  • Rijsdijk S.A., van den Ende J. Control combinations in new product development projects. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 2011, 28(November):868-880.
  • Rodríguez-Escudero A.I., Carbonell P., Munuera-Aleman J.L. Positive and negative effects of team stressors on job satisfaction and new product performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 2010, 27:856-868.
  • Sarin S., Majahan V. The effect of reward structures on the performance of cross-functional product development teams. J. Mark. 2001, 65(2):35-53.
  • Schultz C., Salomo S., de Brentani U., Kleinschmidt E.J. How formal control influences decision-making clarity and innovation performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 2013, 30(3):430-447.
  • Sivasubramaniam N., Liebowitz S.J., Lackman C.L. Determinants of new product development team performance: a meta-analytic review. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 2012, 29(5):803-820.
  • Song X.M., Montoya-Weiss M., Schmidt J.B. Antecedents and consequences of cross-functional cooperation: a comparison of R&D, manufacturing, and marketing perspectives. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 1997, 14(1):35-47.
  • Spiller S.A., Fitzsimons G.J., Lynch J.G., McClelland G.H. Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: simple effects tests in moderated regression. J. Mark. Res. 2013, 50:277-288.
  • Tatikonda M.V., Montoya-Weiss M.V. Integrating operations and marketing perspectives of product innovation: the influence of organizational process factors and capabilities on development performance. Manage. Sci. 2001, 47(1):151-172.
  • Tatikonda M.V., Rosenthal S.R. Successful execution of product development projects: balancing firmness and flexibility in product innovation. J. Oper. Manage. 2000, 18(4):401-425.
  • Tu C. Balancing exploration and exploitation capabilities in high technology firms: a multi-source multi-context examination. Ind. Mark. Manage. 2010, 39:672-680.
  • Woodman R.W., Sawyer J.E., Griffin R.W. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Acad. Manage. Rev. 1993, 18(2):293-321.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet