Discussion

Figure 3.2. Cross-level moderation of project management style

In order to interpret interactions as cross-level moderation, the interaction needs to remain significant after all between-team variance is removed from the individual level predictor (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). We therefore conducted cross-level moderation analyses after group-mean centering exploration orientation, which removes between-team variance. As group-mean centering is only possible for teams for which more than one employee had participated, the sample size was reduced to 104 individuals working in 41 project team. The cross-level moderation for this model was also significant (γ = 0.89, p = .03). Thus, team members with a higher exploration orientation as compared to the other members of their team were higher in active performance if project management style was emergent. The reverse was true if project management style was planned.

employees with a low exploration orientation showed active performance. If project management style was emergent, exploration oriented employees showed active performance.

The findings provide support for the notion of contextual fit. Active performance of an employee depended not only on personal characteristics but also on the interaction between person and context (Magnusson & Endler, 1977). This is in line with regulatory fit theory, which predicts superior outcomes if the means with which a person pursues a goal are consistent with the person’s motivational orientation. To date, regulatory fit has been mostly studied in experimental settings and with respect to prevention and promotion focus (Higgins, 2005). As we have demonstrated, the phenomenon of regulatory fit is not limited to

prevention and promotion focus. It also applies to exploration orientation. In organizations, contextual conditions at the individual, team and organizational level influence the means with which a person pursues a goal and therefore the extent to which regulatory fit can occur.

Regulatory fit and the notion of contextual fit may prove useful for future research on person-environment fit. They specify a motivational mechanism by which fit leads to intended outcomes, i.e. the congruence between motivational preferences and the manner of goal pursuit.

The way a project is managed is a contextual condition that differentially affects individuals working on the project. Past research has found that neither a planned nor an emergent style of project management is more effective in general (Lewis et al., 2002). One explanation has been the variety and dynamics of task demands of R&D projects (Bledow, Frese et al., 2009a). Some demands are better met by a planned style while others are better met by an emergent style of management (Lewis et al., 2002). This study contributes to the literature on project management by showing that individual differences need to be taken into account when addressing the effectiveness of different project management styles. The performance of individual employees is higher if project management style is congruent with employees’ orientation and active performance of employees is likely to contribute to the success of a project.

Concerning goal orientations, our findings underline the importance of mastery orientation for active performance in R&D settings. A focus on refining and extending rather than merely demonstrating one’s knowledge, skills, and abilities is essential for innovation (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). In the present study, mastery orientation was directly related to exploration orientation and active performance. Through its relationship with exploration

orientation, mastery orientation was also indirectly related to active performance for projects with an emergent style of management. The pattern of relationships of goal-orientations with exploration orientation supported the hypothesized nomological net of variables related to exploration orientation. Moreover, results showed that exploration orientation was a distinct and useful concept at the individual level of analysis which predicted active performance independent of goal orientations. Although we found a negative relationship between

performance-avoid goal orientation and exploration orientation, we did not find the expected negative relationship between performance-avoid orientation and active performance. We cannot clarify if this is a sample-specific finding or if there are contextual conditions which influence the relationship between performance-avoid orientation and active performance.

3.4.1. Limitations and future research

Although exploration orientation was a useful explanatory construct in this study, several questions and limitations about its theoretical meaning and measurement at the individual level need to be addressed. First, this study examined exploration orientation as a relative orientation; it did not examine the extent and effectiveness of exploration and

exploitation. As performance requires people to explore and exploit, more research is needed which examines the absolute level of both activities. According to Bledow and colleagues (2009) the ability to integrate exploration and exploitation by repeatedly shifting between both activities requires further attention. For people with a strong orientation towards either activity, effective performance of the activity that is inconsistent with their orientation should be a particular challenge.

Second, although factor analysis found support for a general factor underlying responses on the exploration versus exploitation items, factor loadings were partly low.

People’s preferences varied between specific examples of exploration versus exploitation activities. This can be explained by the variety of different activities referred to as exploration and exploitation and the situational variance introduced by items (Bledow & Frese, 2009).

The resulting low level of internal consistency does not affect the usefulness of the scale as a predictor (Motowidlo et al., 1990). However, exploration should not be interpreted in terms of a homogenous trait factor. It is a composite measure of preferences concerning exploration versus exploitation (Law & Wong, 1999). The internal structure of these preferences and their relationship to other constructs requires further investigation.

Third, although we found sufficient between-team variance to aggregate project management style to the team level, the reliability of the mean of project management style across members of one project was low (ICC 2 for project management style was .45). ICC 2 depends on the number of participants per team (Bliese, 2000). In this study, the number of participants per team was low. The resulting unreliability in project management style made the test of the contextual fit hypothesis more conservative (Bliese, 1998). This unreliability suggests that there are different perceptions of project management style within a team.

Between team differences in project management were nevertheless reflected in participants’

ratings.

There are also limitations concerning the generalizability of findings. The sample consisted of employees in R&D projects. The differentiation of exploration versus exploitation is particularly important for this setting and future research needs to address whether exploration orientation is related to active performance in other settings. Moreover, in work settings without a project-based structure, contextual conditions other than project management style which influence the means by which employees pursue goals, need to be considered as well. The climate of a team or department and behavior of the leader are factors that influence the behavior of individual employees and that may influence whether

contextual fit or misfit occurs (Miron et al., 2004). Third, the outcome studied was chosen based on its importance for overall performance and its direct link to regulatory fit theory.

The question whether contextual fit and active performance translate to objective

performance criteria such as quality and market performance of new products requires further research.

3.4.2. Practical implications

Active performance can be promoted by ensuring congruence between employee’s exploration orientation and the work context. This study suggests that employees benefit if they can self-select projects or work environments that are in accordance with their

exploration orientation. Crafting one’s job such that it is more in line with one’s exploration orientation can contribute to active performance (Frese, Garst, & Fay, 2007). Project

managers can ensure active performance by adopting project management styles that are congruent with the project team (Keller, 1989). As members of a project team differ in terms of their exploration orientation, there are tradeoffs in selecting the right project management

style. A certain project management style leads to contextual fit for some employees and to misfit for other employees.

One possibility to deal with this trade-off is that project managers do not routinely apply their preferred style of management but adapt project management style to individual employees. Within the boundary of a given project, project managers and project team members may need to show different behaviors towards individual employees. One possible pathway may be to offer clear guidelines and structure and at the same time allow exploration oriented employees to deviate from this planned project management style (Birkinshaw &

Gibson, 2004). Individual differences thus pose conflicting demands on project managers and members of project teams. The ability to meet such conflicting demands by showing

variability in behavior in different situations and towards different people has been referred to as ambidextrous leadership (Bledow, Frese et al., 2009a).

Although a conclusion of this study is that value can be created by increasing contextual fit, maximization of fit by selecting employees with a similar exploration orientation for a project may be problematic (cf. Schneider, 2001). On the team level, a certain extent of heterogeneity among team members in exploration orientation may prove functional because both exploration and exploitation activities are essential for R&D projects (Miron-Spektor, Erez, & Naveh, 2006). Selecting employees with a similar exploration orientation for a project may facilitate contextual fit; however, it comes at the expense of diversity within a project team. Thus, the requisite diversity in project teams is not easily reconcilable with fit for every project team member. Therefore, we suggest that a flexible management approach, which enables contextual fit for different employees within one project, is more promising than an attempt to increase fit primarily through selection.

Even on the individual level, we argue that a healthy level of fit is more desirable than a maximization of fit. People differ in their orientation towards either exploration or

exploitation and working in a consistent environment increases active performance. However, in order to remain adaptive, people need to explore and exploit and be able to meet demands that are inconsistent with their orientation (Bledow, Frese et al., 2009a). Maximization of fit may reduce this ability if it strengthens an orientation toward one activity rather than enabling a balanced orientation towards both activities.