Positive and Negative Effects of Team Stressors on Job Satisfaction and New Product Performance<sup>*</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of stress and its impact on performance has received limited empirical attention in the new product development field. The present study examines the impact of three work stressors (i.e., role ambiguity, role conflict, and pressure for performance) on team job satisfaction and three dimensions of new product performance: adherence to budget and schedule, product quality, and market success. Data were collected using a cross sectional, Web‐based survey among Spanish innovative firms. A total of 197 questionnaires was received. Findings from this research suggest that role conflict and role ambiguity are negatively related to team job satisfaction. Results, however, show a lack of association between pressure for performance and job satisfaction. Regarding the effect of work stressors on new product performance, findings indicate that different stressors have different relationships with performance. Concerning role ambiguity, findings provide empirical evidence of a U‐shaped relationship between role ambiguity and adherence to budget and schedule and between role ambiguity and product quality. Thus, intermediate levels of role ambiguity are hurtful, but low and high levels of role ambiguity are helpful. Nonetheless, given that the levels of ambiguity measured in this study are not high enough, the findings regarding the impact of moderate to high levels of ambiguity on new product performance should be viewed as tentative. Role conflict has a negative linear relationship with adherence to budget schedule and an inverted U‐shaped relationship with product quality. For pressure for performance, findings indicate a triphasic effect on product quality. Specifically, the initial phase is characterized by increasingly lower levels of product quality owing to increasing levels of pressure for performance. As pressure for performance keeps further increasing, a positive effect on product quality begins to manifest. Beyond some threshold, however, a new phase starts in which product quality decreases with increasing amounts of performance pressure. Finally, results show a lack of association between pressure for performance and adherence to budget and schedule. All three stressors were found to have an indirect, rather than a direct, effect on market success via job satisfaction, adherence to budget and schedule, or product quality. Several managerial implications follow from these results. First, product managers should make every effort to reduce role ambiguity to minimal levels, ensuring that team members fully understand their role requirements and have adequate information about their job. Second, rather than reducing the level of role conflict to zero, managers must take into account the positive effect that moderate levels of role conflict have in product quality. Finally, management should put some pressure on the team members and make sure they understand that there is a sense of urgency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".