自治
心理学
团队构成
基线(sea)
领域(数学)
社会心理学
谈判
指导
同性恋
情感(语言学)
团队效能
创业
知识管理
业务
社会学
计算机科学
政治学
财务
纯数学
沟通
心理治疗师
社会科学
法学
数学
作者
Viktoria Boss,Linus Dahlander,Christoph Ihl,Rajshri Jayaraman
出处
期刊:Organization Science
[Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences]
日期:2021-11-05
卷期号:34 (6): 2097-2118
被引量:29
标识
DOI:10.1287/orsc.2021.1520
摘要
Scholars have suggested that autonomy can lead to better entrepreneurial team performance. Yet, there are different types of autonomy, and they come at a cost. We shed light on whether two fundamental organizational design choices—granting teams autonomy to (1) choose project ideas to work on and (2) choose team members to work with—affect performance. We run a field experiment involving 939 students in a lean startup entrepreneurship course over 11 weeks. The aim is to disentangle the separate and joint effects of granting autonomy over choosing teams and choosing ideas compared with a baseline treatment with preassigned ideas and team members. We find that teams with autonomy over choosing either ideas or team members outperform teams in the baseline treatment as measured by pitch deck performance. The effect of choosing ideas is significantly stronger than the effect of choosing teams. However, the performance gains vanish for teams that are granted full autonomy over choosing both ideas and teams. This suggests the two forms of autonomy are substitutes. Causal mediation analysis reveals that the main effects of choosing ideas or teams can be partly explained by a better match of ideas with team members’ interests and prior network contacts among team members, respectively. Although homophily and lack of team diversity cannot explain the performance drop among teams with full autonomy, our results suggest that self-selected teams fall prey to overconfidence and complacency too early to fully exploit the potential of their chosen idea. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on organizational design, autonomy, and innovation. History: This paper has been accepted for the Organization Science Special Issue on Experiments in Organizational Theory. Funding: The authors are grateful for funding from the Innovation Growth Laboratory, the Peter Curtius Foundation, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [Grant CRC TRR 190]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1520 .
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI