Method

the other representing exploitation. Each pair of activities was linked to a work situation.

Participants were instructed to indicate which one out of each pair of activities they would be more likely to perform. We used a six-point scale allowing participants to give gradual responses. Participants could answer if they lean somewhat, predominantly, or exclusively either towards exploration or exploitation. An example item is: “Your supervisor asks you to perform an urgent and novel task. How do you proceed to accomplish the task? I proceed in the manner that appears most appropriate even if it is completely new to me(Exploration) vs.

I proceed in a manner that is consistent with how I have successfully performed similar tasks in the past (Exploitation)”.The full set of items is listed in the appendix.

We used the theoretical definition of March (1991) and several published scales to derive items for exploration and exploitation (Bierly & Daly, 2007; Jansen, Van Den Bosch,

& Volberda, 2006; Lubatkin, Simsek, Yan, & Veiga, 2006; Mom, Van Den Bosch, &

Volberda, 2007). However, none of these measures conceptualized exploration versus exploitation as an individual’s relative orientation. Moreover, items did not refer to exploration and exploitation activities in the context of working in R&D projects. We therefore formulated pairs of activities relevant for R&D projects based on the available scales. Items were refined through several rounds of discussions among the authors and graduate students of psychology. Items were pilot tested in a convenience sample of N = 80 employees and further refined based on their psychometric properties. Maximization of internal consistency was not a criterion for item development, as the breadth of the theoretical construct should be reflected in the items.

Exploration orientation is conceptualized as a composite scale that measures the overall preference of an individual towards either exploratory or exploitative activities. The specific activities that comprise exploration or exploitation and the situations they are linked to are heterogeneous. For instance, making incremental adaptations and planning in detail are activities that have been referred to as examples of exploitation (March, 1991). Although they represent the same theoretical concept within the exploration versus exploitation framework, they do not necessarily covary highly and they are not reflective indicators of a single latent psychological trait (for a detailed discussion on composite scales see Bledow & Frese, 2009).

In line with this reasoning, principle component analysis showed that all items loaded on one first factor. However, item loadings were rather low (factor loadings: .30 - .76). Internal consistency of the eight item scale was α = .63.

Project management style. Between-team differences in project management style were assessed along a dimension with the poles emergent and planned project management style. The three subdimensions of project management style were structure, managerial control and directives. Higher values indicate a planned rather than an emergent project management style. All items are listed in Table 3.1. For structure four items of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire dimension of initiating structure were used (Schriesheim

& Kerr, 1974; Stogdill, 1963). Items were adapted to refer to the project rather than to a single supervisor. For control three items of the managerial control scale by Henderson and Soonchul (1992) were used. After interviews with project team leaders, we developed three additional items to capture whether there were precise directives concerning the objective of a project, the time scheduling and the financial budgeting. Respondents answered on a five-point Likert scale. Factor analysis supported a three factor solution with intercorrelated factors. Cronbach’s alpha for the overall measure of project management style was .79. We report results for the subdimensions as well as for the overall measure.

Table 3.1

Items and item loadings for project management style

Subscales and items for project management style Factor

loadings α ^{ICC (1) R}wg.j

Structure .75 .19 .79

We receive clearly defined instruction on how to perform our tasks.

.77

We receive specific work assignments. .78

There are guidelines that direct work on the project. .67 We follow instructions that are laid out in detail to perform our

work. .68

Managerial control ^{.67 .17 .78}

On this project there is control that employees invest full effort. .81 On this project meeting of performance standards is reviewed on a

regular basis. .83

The level of performance that is expected is made clear to project

team members. .61

Detailedness of planning .71 .19 .80

For this project there is a clearly defined objective. .62 This project has a detailed time scheduling. .79 The financial budgeting for this project is comprehensive. .87

As project management style is a team level variable, we examined intraclass correlation (ICC 1) and agreement for multiple item scales (rwg.j) to justify aggregation of responses of individual team members to the project team level (Bliese, 2006). These analyses were conducted with the subset of 41 project teams on which more than one team member had participated. ICC 1 and rwg.j for the three subdimensions of project management style are listed in Table 3.1. For the overall measure of project management style ICC 1 was .23 indicating that 23% of the variance in responses was due to differences between teams.

The mean rwg.j value was .88.

Goal-orientations. Goal orientations were assessed with the work domain self-report instrument by VandeWalle (1997). Each dimension was measured with five items on a five-point Likert scale. For mastery orientation, Cronbach’s alpha was .83. An example item is: “I enjoy challenging and difficult tasks at work where I’ll learn new skills”. For performance-prove orientation Cronbach’s alpha was .68; an example item is: “I’m concerned with showing that I can perform better than others”. For performance-avoid goal orientation an example item is: “I prefer to avoid situations at work where I might perform poorly”.

Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .85

Active performance. Supervisors assessed team member’s active performance on five items of the personal initiative scale developed and validated by Frese, Fay, Hilburger, and Leng (1997). An example item is: “This employee actively attacks problems”. Cronbach’s alpha for the five-point Likert scale was .90. Items of the scale measure to what extent employees in general perform in an active rather than passive way. Frese (2008) proposed active performance as a concept that integrates personal initiative and related constructs such as engagement and taking charge. We therefore use the term active performance rather than personal initiative.