Leadership and 1

Running head: LEADERSHIP AND COOPERATION AS SUCCESS FACTORS

Leadership and cooperation as success factors in innovative R&D projects on electronic

platforms—A Critical Analysis

 Leadership and 2

Introduction

This paper provides a critique of the article titled “Leadership and cooperation as success

factors in innovative R&D projects on electronic platforms” authored by Heinz, Baga, Gebert,

and Kearney (2006). The stated purpose of the authors’ research was the examination of

leadership factors contributing to R&D project success for organizations utilizing the support of

electronic platforms (Heinz, et al., 2006). While the article provides good background and

definition of the leadership factors by way of the literature review, an unsupported assumption

and certain details of the model, research, and analysis detract somewhat from the value and

potential usefulness of the findings.

Article Critique

Abstract. The article abstract is presented in eight listed sections: purpose,

design/technology/approach, findings, research limitations/implications, practical implications,

originality/value, keywords, and paper type. The abstract was complete in its presentation with

the exception that the method of data collection via survey was not identified. The abstract could

have been improved through a more succinct summary of the findings.

Introduction. The introduction indicates an assumption that “project and team success is

fostered by the technological aid of an electronic platform” (Heinz, et al., 2006). Building from

this assumption, the authors intend to fill a gap in research addressing how leadership,

communication, team size, and technology “newness” effect these electronic aided organizations

(Heinz, et al., 2006). With the use of this assumption as the apparent basis for limiting research

to only companies using electronic platforms, the failure of the authors to provide any credible

source or supporting data for this assumption created a sense of arbitrary scope in their research.

Literature review. The literature review was utilized as the means for introducing and
 Leadership and 3

defining the “leadership and coordination variables” (Heinz, et al., 2006). A review of literature

was also provided in the sections leading to the presentation of the hypotheses. In both

instances, the literature review was sufficient to convey a thorough understanding of the

leadership terminology and relevancy of the hypotheses. No literature was referenced indicating

any existing research examining the relationship between project success and the use of

electronic platforms.

Conceptual model. The authors present three “context characteristics”; degree of

electronic integration, number of personnel involved in the project, and the relative “newness” of

the task; in which a total of six hypotheses are proposed as predictors for project success (Heinz,

et al., 2006). In the subsequent analysis sections, the state of these characteristics was simply

identified as “high” or “low” with no clear demarcation of one state from the other (Heinz, et al.,

2006). The lack of definition for a low versus high value in the model hints toward a lack of

rigor and creates question if the determination was simply on author preference and convenience.

Research methodology. Nonexperimental research by means of a correlational study

(Salkind, 2009) was conducted to examine the relationship between the independent variables of

leadership, cooperation, and communication and the dependant variable of project success

(Heinz, et al., 2006). Heinz et al. developed a questionnaire addressing leadership, cooperation,

communication, “contextual characteristics”, and project success (2006). Survey questions

related to leadership variables were thorough while questions addressing contextual

characteristics were limited in number. Questions assessing project success were strictly

qualitative omitting any quantitative measure of success (e.g. schedule, budget, or requirements

achieved).

Data collection. Survey data was collected from both organizations with preexisting
 Leadership and 4

personal contact with the authors and those organizations whose initial contact was limited to

inquiry via email. Considering the correlation between level of personal contact and openness of

communication and trust presented elsewhere by the authors, it seems incongruous to mix data

from organizations with differing levels of personal contact with the authors. Given the nature of

questions related to leadership quality and success, differing levels of trust with the authors may

yield differing levels of openness in survey responses.

Data analysis. The presentation of data analysis was moderate with a satisfactory

description or citation for the analysis technique was lacking. The absence of detail in data

analysis prohibits easy verification and replication of the results by the reader. An opportunity

may have been missed by not including and analyzing data from organizations not using

electronic platforms.

Hypothesis testing. The authors claim that all hypotheses were confirmed. This claim

was based on numerical correlation values summarized in a table of “regression analysis”

ranging from +0.50 to +0.79 for the associated hypothesis (Heinz, et al., 2006). Inclusion of the

numerical correlation values within the narrative discussion, or, annotation of the relevant values

in the table would have assisted a reader in making the connection between the level of

correlation and the claims that the hypothesis was supported.

Conclusions. The previously identified assumptive issue in scope, omitted demarcation

in “context characteristic” state, and mixing of data from sources with differing relationships to

the authors detracts from the value of the conclusions. Overall, there is a sense of convenience

in how the research confirmed all hypotheses and uncovered nothing unexpected. The authors

did not acknowledge any other correlational relationships that were indicated by the data analysis

including a positive relationship between frequency of contacts and project success when
 Leadership and 5

personnel levels are high that is not indicated for smaller groups, and, a positive relationship

between decision autonomy and project success only when the project “newness” is low (Heinz,

et al., 2006).

Summary

The authors’ intent was to demonstrate that a positive relationship exists between project

success and specific aspects of leadership, communication, and cooperation for organizations

supported by electronic platforms (Heinz, et al., 2006). The authors claim that an analysis of

survey data from 56 organizations illustrated that dependant on group size, level of electronic

integration, and technology “newness”, things such as goal clarity, decision autonomy, trust,

spirit, and communication were predictors of success (Heinz, et al., 2006). The reason for

limiting the study to only organizations using electronic platforms was never made clear.

In preparing my critique, I initially reviewed the article in its entirety three times. The

first cursory pass provided a general understanding while second was a more critical beginning

to end review. The third review was executed in reverse and started with each conclusion tracing

backwards to its origins. The objective was to examine the methodology from different

perspectives and to uncover any inconsistencies. It was at this point that I became unsatisfied

with the justification provided by the authors in limiting their research scope to only organization

using electronic platforms. Based on this exercise, I intend to more closely scrutinize my own

approach to identifying and using assumptions in research.

 Leadership and 6

References

Heinz, U., Baga, T., Gebert, D., & Kearney, E. (2006). Leadership and cooperation as

success factors in innovative R&D projects on electronic platforms. Team Performance

Management, 12(3/4), 66-76.

Salkind, N. J. (2009). Exploring Research (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Prentice Hall.