Associate Professor Brendan Boyle

© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature This study investigates a moderated mediation model of professional commitment and team effectiveness through cognitive diversity moderated by task conflict. Data were collected from 70 UK healthcare teams and their leaders using two questionnaires. We find that teams comprised of members who have, on average, high professional commitment are more effective than teams of members who are less committed and that this path is mediated by cognitive diversity and contingent on task conflict. Team composed of members who are strongly committed to their profession may be more effective consequent to their advocacy of different perspectives and expertise, reflecting cognitive diversity. However, this positive effect of professional commitment is not universal but contingent on the level of disagreement between members on task-related issues. This is one of the first studies to demonstrate that professional commitment can increase team effectiveness and does so through a complex contingent path. While few studies have investigated professional commitment, our results suggest that such commitment can be of great value to multidisciplinary teams.

© 2017, © Ashish Malik, Brendan Boyle and Rebecca Mitchell. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine innovation in the resource-constrained context of India¿s healthcare industry. It is argued that the process of innovation in addressing healthcare management challenges in such a context occurs through organisational ambidexterity and that human resource management (HRM) plays an important role. Design/methodology/approach: A qualitative research methodology is applied to explore the role of HR practices in facilitating contextual ambidexterity and subsequent innovations in healthcare in India. The unit of analysis is the ¿case¿ of healthcare providers in India and in-depth interview and documentary data in two case sites are analysed to reveal the role of HRM in facilitating contextual ambidexterity and innovation. Data analysis was undertaken first at a within-case and then at a cross-case analysis level using interpretive manual coding based on how the data explained the role of HRM in delivering innovative outcomes and supporting organisational ambidexterity. Findings: The authors found evidence of the use of sets of high-involvement HRM practices for exploration of new ideas and efficiency-driven HRM practices for creating contextual ambidexterity in the case organisations. Further, managerial/leadership style was found to play an important role in creating cultures of trust, openness, risk-taking and employee empowerment, supported by an appropriate mix of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Finally, training was also reported as being central to creating an ambidextrous context for delivering on various innovations in these healthcare providers. Originality/value: This study represents an exploration of innovation in the context of India¿s healthcare sector through intersecting literatures of ambidexterity, innovation and HRM practices. In light of the emerging economy research context, an important empirical contribution is palpable. Moreover, through a study design which included collecting data from multiple informants on the role of human resources in facilitating innovative outcomes, the authors reveal the role of HR-related initiatives, beyond formal HR practices in creating contextual ambidexterity. This study also reveals the degree to which contextual idiosyncrasies enhance our understanding of the role of HR in facilitating innovation in emerging economies.

The results of research on diversity in teams suggest that it offers both a great opportunity for organisations as well as an enormous challenge. However, current research is plagued by a lack of overall consistency, indicating that the relationship between diversity and team performance is not well understood. This study examines the components of cognitive conflict in order to assess whether construct operationalisation may explain this inconsistency. Analysis of the existing operationalisations of cognitive conflict reveals that it incorporates both disagreement about information and reasoning, and debate of rival hypotheses or recommendations. We propose that functional diversity leads to cognitive disagreement but not debate, and that debate enhances knowledge creation, with which cognitive disagreement shows no relationship. Our results support these hypotheses, which provide a powerful explanation for the contrary results found by researchers investigating cognitive conflict. Given that extant measures of cognitive conflict include scale items which measure both debate and cognitive disagreement, cognitive conflict may be viewed as an aggregate measure of these two distinct constructs. This study contributes to research on diversity and conflict by providing an explanation for contrary results, and by providing and a detailed operationalisation of cognitive conflict and its component constructs. It also contributes to research into creativity and innovation by providing insight into the dynamics underpinning knowledge sharing and creation.