Current issue
Archive
About the Journal
About
Editorial Office
Scientific Board
Abstract & Indexing
Contact
Reviewers list
Editorial Policies
Authorship & COI
Ethical principles
Crossmark
Principles of Transparent Checklist
Open access
Instruction for Authors
Guidelines for Authors
Manuscript Types
Manuscript structure
How to submit
SCIENCE ARTICLE
Roles in Research Teams: The Perspective of University Commercialisation
1
Department of Enterprise Management, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland
2
Centre for Academic Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland
These authors had equal contribution to this work
Submission date: 2023-12-27
Final revision date: 2024-02-29
Acceptance date: 2024-03-14
Online publication date: 2024-04-19
Publication date: 2024-04-19
Corresponding author
Maciej Zastempowski
Department of Enterprise Management, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Gagarina 13A, 87-100, Toruń, Poland
Department of Enterprise Management, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Gagarina 13A, 87-100, Toruń, Poland
Management 2024;1:106-137
KEYWORDS
JEL CLASSIFICATION CODES
I23
L26
M13
O39
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Although the investigation of team roles has been a focus of scientific research over an extended period, one of the less recognised issues in this area is the functioning of research teams, especially in commercialising their scientific results. Drawing from a comprehensive examination of the literature and the concept of ‘The A-to-F Model’ by de Bes and Kotler, this paper aims to broaden the knowledge about the research team’s roles and their influence on commercialising their results. To do this, in the empirical part, we use the data from a study of 496 scientists from one of the leading research universities in Poland. The results of the estimated probit regression models showed the inconsistency with ‘The A-to-F Model’. Only two of the six roles, i.e., creator and executor, are essential. The activator, browser, developer, and facilitator were statistically insignificant.
REFERENCES (63)
1.
Aldawod, Alvin. (2022). A framework for the opportunity recognition process in UK entrepreneurial universities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121386.
2.
Alsharo, Mohammad, Gregg, Dawn, & Ramirez, Ronald. (2017). Virtual team effectiveness: The role of knowledge sharing and trust. Information and Management, 54(4), 479–490.
4.
Aritzeta, Aitor, Ayestarán, Sabino, & Balluerka, Nekane. (2003). Perspectiva sistémica y multinivel del análisis organizacional: Una aproximación conceptual y metodológica. Revista de Psicologia Social, 18(3), 239–260.
5.
Aritzeta, Aitor, Swailes, Stephen, & Senior, Barbara. (2007). Belbin’s Team Role Model: Development, Validity and Applications for Team Building. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 96–118.
6.
Arroyabe, Marta F, Schumann, Martin, & Arranz, Carlos F A. (2022). Mapping the entrepreneurial university literature: a text mining approach. Studies in Higher Education, 47(5), 955–963.
7.
Ballesteros-Rodríguez, J L, De Saá-Pérez, P, García-Carbonell, N, Martín-Alcázar, F, & Sánchez-Gardey, G. (2022). The influence of team members’ motivation and leaders’ behaviour on scientific knowledge sharing in universities. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(2), 320–336.
8.
Battaglia, Daniele, Paolucci, Emilio, & Ughetto, Elisa. (2021). Opening the black box of university Proof-of-Concept programs: Project and teambased determinants of research commercialization outcomes. Technovation, 108, 102334.
9.
Bear, Julia B., & Woolley, Anita Williams. (2011). The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(2), 146–153.
10.
Bednár, Richard, & Ljudvigová, Ivana. (2020). Belbin team roles in a startup team. SHS Web of Conferences, 83, 01002.
11.
Belbin, R.M. (2010). Team Roles at Work. In Team Roles at Work. https://doi.org/10.4324/978008....
12.
Bogers, Marcel, Chesbrough, H.W., Heaton, Sohvi, & Teece, David J. (2019). Strategic Management of Open Innovation: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective. California Management Review, 62(1), 77–94.
13.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating And Profiting from Technology. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
14.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Perennial.
15.
de Bes, F, & Kotler, Ph. (2015). Winning at Innovation. The A-to-F Model. Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
De Cleyn, Sven H, Braet, Johan, & Klofsten, Magnus. (2015). How human capital interacts with the early development of academic spin-offs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(3), 599–621.
17.
Dezi, L, Santoro, G, Monge, F, & Zhao, Y. (2018). Assessing the impact and antecedents of university scientific research on firms’ innovation commercialisation. International Journal of Technology Management, 78(1–2), 88–106.
18.
Dougherty, Deborah. (1992). Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202.
19.
Dutka, G, Gawron, G, & Rojek-Adamek, P. (2021). Creativity based on new technologies in design of age-friendly cities: Polish seniors about their needs – research reflection. Creativity Studies, 14(1), 218–234.
20.
Dyer, J, Gregersen, H, & Christensen, C M. (2011). The Innovator’s DNA: Mastering The Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Review Press.
21.
Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64–77.
22.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix -- University- Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge Based Economic Development. EASST Review, 14(1), 14–19. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2480....
23.
Etzkowitz, H. (2010). University-Industry-Government: The Triple Helix Model of Innovation. Felgueira, Teresa, & Rodrigues, Ricardo Gouveia. (2020). I-ENTRE-U: an individual entrepreneurial orientation scale for teachers and researchers in higher education institutions. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 17(1), 1–21.
24.
García-Sánchez, Paola, Díaz-Díaz, Nieves L, & De Saá-Pérez, Petra. (2017). Social capital and knowledge sharing in academic research teams. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(1), 191–207.
25.
Grandi, Alessandro, & Grimaldi, Rosa. (2003). Exploring the Networking Characteristics of New Venture Founding Teams. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 329–341.
26.
Guerrero, Maribel, Urbano, David, & Herrera, Fernando. (2019). Innovation practices in emerging economies: Do university partnerships matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 615–646.
27.
Janis, Irving Lester. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. In Presidential Studies Quarterly.
28.
Hu, J., Erdogan, B., Jiang, K., Bauer, T. N., & Liu, S. (2018). Leader humility and team creativity: The role of team information sharing, psychological safety, and power distance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl000...
29.
Jonek-Kowalska, Izabela, Musioł-Urbańczyk, Anna, Podgórska, Marzena, & Wolny, Maciej. (2021). Does motivation matter in evaluation of research institutions? Evidence from Polish public universities. Technology in Society, 67, 101782.
30.
Joshi, K. D., Sarker, Saonee, & Sarker, Suprateek. (2007). Knowledge transfer within information systems development teams: Examining the role of knowledge source attributes. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 322–335.
31.
Kochan, Thomas, Bezrukova, Katerina, Ely, Robin, Jackson, Susan, Joshi, Aparna, Jehn, Karen, Leonard, Jonathan, Levine, David, & Thomas, David. (2003). The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network. Human Resource Management, 42(1), 3–21.
32.
Krabel, Stefan, & Schacht, Alexander. (2014). Follow the leader? How leadership behavior influences scientists’ commercialization behavior (or not). Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 23(2), 134 – 160.
33.
Latif, Nur Syahira Abd, Abdullah, Azizan, & Jan, Nawawi Mohd. (2016). A Pilot Study of Entrepreneurial Orientation towards Commercialization of University Research Products. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, 93–99.
35.
Leydesdorff, Loet. (2010). The knowledge-based economy and the triple helix model. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44(1), 365–417.
36.
Lucas, Leyland M. (2010). The role of teams, culture, and capacity in the transfer of organizational practices. Learning Organization, 17(5), 419–436.
37.
Mathieu, John E, Tannenbaum, Scott I, Kukenberger, Michael R, Donsbach, Jamie S, & Alliger, George M. (2014). Team Role Experience.and Orientation: A Measure and Tests of Construct Validity. Group &Organization Management, 40(1), 6–34.
38.
Mendoza-Silva, Andrea. (2021). Innovation capability: A sociometic approach. Social Networks, 64, 72–82.
39.
Nelson, Andrew J. (2014). From the ivory tower to the startup garage: Organizational context and commercialization processes. Research Policy, 43(7), 1144–1156.
40.
Nikiforou, Argyro, Zabara, Tatiana, Clarysse, Bart, & Gruber, Marc. (2018). The role of teams in academic spin-offs. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(1), 78–100.
41.
Novela, Selly, Syarief, Rizal, Fahmi, Idqan, & Arkeman, Yandra. (2021). Building Institutional Model of Entrepreneurial University. International Journal of Management, 12(1), 517–527.
43.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
44.
Prichard, Jane S., & Stanton, Neville A. (1999). Testing Belbin’s team role theory of effective groups. Journal of Management Development, 18(8), 652–665.
45.
Revilla, Elena, & Rodríguez-Prado, Beatriz. (2018). Bulding ambidexterity through creativity mechanisms: Contextual drivers of innovation success. Research Policy, 47(9), 1611–1625.
46.
Roden, Bopha, Lusher, Dean, Spurling, Thomas H, Simpson, Gregory W, Klein, Till, Brailly, Julien, & Hogan, Bernie. (2020). Avoiding GIGO: Learnings from data collection in innovation research. Social Networks. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socn....
47.
Romero, I., & Martínez-Román, Juan A. (2012). Self-employment and innovation. Exploring the determinants of innovative behavior in small businesses. Research Policy, 41(1), 178–189.
48.
Rosa, Peter, & Dawson, Alison. (2006). Gender and the commercialization of university science: Academic founders of spinout companies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 18(4), 341–366.
49.
Rothwell, Roy. (1994). Towards the Fifth‐generation Innovation Process. International Marketing Review, 11(1), 7–31.
50.
Sattler, S, Häusser, J A, & Faber, N S. (2023). Working with a sleep-deprived or a cognitively enhanced team member compromises motivation to contribute to group performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 53(6), 1231–1244.
51.
Savelsbergh, Chantal, Gevers, Josette M P, van der Heijden, Beatrice I J M, & Poell, Rob F. (2012). Team Role Stress: Relationships With Team Learning and Performance in Project Teams. Group & Organization Management, 37(1), 67–100.
52.
Schaeffer, Paola Rücker, Fischer, Bruno Brandão, Queiroz, Sérgio, & de Moraes, Gustavo Hermínio Salati Marcondes. (2024). What makes an entrepreneurial university? Institutional moderators of ecosystem impacts in a developing country. Science and Public Policy, 51(1), 108 – 126.
53.
Temel, Serdal, Dabić, Marina, Murat Ar, Ilker, Howells, Jeremy, Ali Mert, & Yesilay, Rustem Baris. (2021). Exploring the relationship between university innovation intermediaries and patenting performance. Technology in Society, 66, 101665.
54.
Thomas, Elisa, Pugh, Rhiannon, Soetanto, Danny, & Jack, Sarah L. (2023). Beyond ambidexterity: universities and their changing roles in driving regional development in challenging times. Journal of Technology Transfer, 48(6), 2054 – 2073.
55.
Tidd, J, & Bessant, J. (2018). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change (6 edition). Wiley.
56.
Tranfield, David, Denyer, David, & Smart, Palminder. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
57.
Tweheyo, Gregory, Abaho, Ernest, Verma, Anju M, & Musenze, Ibrahim. (2023). The Mediating Role of Transformational Leadership in the Relationship Between Institutional Pressures and Collaboration with Commercialization of University Research Output: A Pilot Study. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management. https://doi.org/10.1142/S02198....
58.
Vanaelst, Iris, Clarysse, Bart, Wright, Mike, Lockett, Andy, Moray, Nathalie, & S’Jegers, Rosette. (2006). Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: An examination of team heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30(2), 249–271.
59.
Visintin, Francesca, & Pittino, Daniel. (2014). Founding team composition and early performance of university-based spin-off companies. Technovation, 34(1), 31–43.
60.
Wright, Mike, Birley, Sue, & Mosey, Simon. (2004). Entrepreneurship and university technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 235–246.
61.
Zastempowski, Maciej, & Cyfert, Szymon. (2021). Impact of entrepreneur’s gender on innovation activities. The perspective of small businesses. PLOS ONE, 16(10), e0258661. https://doi.org/10.1371/journa....
62.
Zhao, Hui, Zhang, Jianwei, Heng, Shupeng, & Qi, Chunhui. (2021). Team growth mindset and team scientific creativity of college students: The role of team achievement goal orientation and leader behavioral feedback. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42(March), 100957.
63.
Diánez-González, Juan Pablo, & Camelo-Ordaz, Carmen. (2016). How management team composition affects academic spin-offs’ entrepreneurial orientation: the mediating role of conflict. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(3), 530–557.
| eISSN: | 2299-193X |
| ISSN: | 1429-9321 (1997-2019) |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
