Innovation team composition : The enabling role of the individual emotive outlook

Despite increased attention to innovation teams in the workplace, composition criteria for implementation success remain unclear. This paper aims to provide a multi-disciplinary perspective on the psychological characteristics of innovation team members. This pragmatic, mixed-method convergent parallel design study examines and compares the emotive outlook profiles and patterns of successful and unsuccessful innovation project implementation teams in the financial service industry. The data generated for this study were obtained from a multi-national company operating in nine African countries and three Namibian institutions, with a total study sample of 169 participants. Quantitative results were obtained through assessments, namely the EQ-i2, 16PF5 and the StrengthScope®. The TESI and the Emotional Style Questionnaire were also used, but produced no significantly different results. Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions produced qualitative findings. The results suggest that individuals in innovation teams have specific emotive outlook profiles. More specifically, the results suggest that successful implementation depends more on the individuals’ intra-psychological strengths than on a specific team profile. The study findings underscore the fact that intra-psychological strengths, that is, mental acuity, emotional selfmanagement awareness and emotional intelligence, rather than team dynamics and interpersonal qualities, characterize successful innovation teams. The key practice implications relate to team selection. The knowledge contribution of this study is the prioritization of the emotive outlook constructs for emotionally and intellectually fit members of innovation implementation teams.

Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License societal, and business model innovations is expected to increase, along with "the pressure to accelerate time-tomarket" of new innovations (Tsakalerou, 2016).However, timeous commercialization of innovation ideas compounds these pressures and thus remains a crucial issue for organizations (Govindarajan and Trimble, 2010).Crossan andApaydin (2010, p.1165) acknowledge that if "implementation is delayed, badly managed or aborted, the innovation would fail to deliver the results an organization is expecting".Although teams are often considered as the vehicle for achieving implementation objectives, it appears problematic to identify which psychological characteristics of an individual or a team increases the probability of successful implementation (Drach-Zahavy and Somech, 2001).This paper focuses on the emotive outlook of individual team members as a criterion for incremental innovation team composition.It is proposed that emotive outlook is an intra-psychological source and driver of the innovation process at individual and team level.We argue that the innovation performance of organizations is embodied in the collective emotional strength of innovation team members.Much of the research literature describes the success of an innovation team "as the degree to which the team accomplished its goal or mission" (Devine and Phillips, 2001, p. 521).Success also implies that team members apply themselves willingly and deliberately (Kratzer et al., 2005).
This study proposes a conceptual framework that incorporates individual-level analysis and contextual factors at the team and organizational levels that can impact innovation outcomes.This framework contributes to the innovation literature by examining team composition from a multi-disciplinary perspective, and by focusing on emotive outlook.We define emotive outlook as a person"s emotional disposition and subsequent behavioral manifestations, when faced with intrapsychological, interpersonal, team, or organizational challenges.This paper asks whether the emotive outlook profiles of individual team members act as the emotional drivers of teams and therefore determine the success of innovation projects.
Scholarly methodology and research design have been applied to explain the development of the emotive outlook framework; results are presented through discussion and validated against already existing literature and research.By identifying the limitations of this study, the researchers can point out possible future research areas.The study offers recommendations and concludes with an overview of practical implications.West and Anderson (1996) propose an input-processoutput model of group innovation.This model considers the team or group composition and the organizational context as input variables.They also propose that group processes, such as a task orientation and support to the group, impact on innovation outputs.Examples of outputs are effectiveness and the number of innovations (West and Anderson, 1996).For the purpose of this research, emotive outlook is conceptualized as an input variable into group processes and subsequent innovation outputs.There are several complexities associated with teamwork (Dunin-Kęplicz and Verbrugge, 2010), including the fact that "team composition is the configuration of member attributes" (Bell, 2007, p.595).

Conceptualizing emotive outlook
LaFasto and Larson (2001, p. 14) postulate that the most pressing challenges for innovation teams involve their members" "emotions, values, personal styles and preferences and not cognitive issues".Although researchers have suggested that individual personality characteristics, such as agreeableness, extraversion and openness to new experiences are important in innovation teams (Goffin and Mitchell, 2014;Kichuk and Wiesner, 1998;Pearsall and Ellis, 2006), it remains unclear how to propose innovation team composition criteria from the reported studies.A considerable body of research supports the important role of emotional intelligence (EI) in teams (O" Boyle et al., 2011).Chang et al. (2012) suggest that higher EI levels in teams improve team performance.However, less attention has been paid to the role of EI in innovation teams.It is therefore important to fully understand the way in which individual behavioral characteristics and dynamics impact on team outcomes (Du Chatenier et al., 2010;Scott and Bruce, 1994).
The Affective Events Theory (AET) argues that there is reciprocity between workplace events, employee emotions, and subsequent performance (Ashkanasy and Ashton-James, 2005).The study review of the literature suggests that viewing innovation teams from both the affective neuroscience and multi-disciplinary perspectives could optimize their composition and implementation capacity (Gazzaniga et al., 2009;Hodgkinson and Healey, 2014).Management and behavioral scientists increasingly recognize the impact of people"s emotions on their thoughts and behaviors, including decisionmaking, performance, attentiveness and team behavior (Ashkanasy and Ashton-James, 2005;Barsade and Gibson, 2007;Offermann et al., 2009;Tsakalerou, 2016).Barret (2017) explains that individual emotions reflect the accumulated information derived from previous experiences, which subsequently influence behavior.Therefore emotions play an important role in team composition.However, current research has insufficiently considered emotions as a criterion for innovation team composition (Anderson et al., 2004;Crossan and Apaydin, 2010;Hülsheger et al., 2009;Shane and Ulrich, 2004).
Current definitions of incremental innovation teams seem to emphasize planning, application, financing, and multi-functionality, as well as certain skills that ensure the execution of their directives (Aldag and Kuzuhara, 2015;

Outlook
Outlook is considered as positivity, characterized by a certain realism and emotional regulation.It can range from being optimistic to being pessimistic.(Davidson, 2003;Davidson and Begley, 2012;Fox, 2012;Forgas and East, 2008;Moekenmeyer et al., 2012;Prati et al., 2003) Social intuition This implies responsiveness, or the lack thereof, in relationships and conversations.(Davidson and Begley, 2012) Self-awareness This implies an awareness of one"s own bodily reactions to specific emotions or emotional cues, based on self-awareness or the lack thereof.(Fredrickson, 2003;Davidson and Begley, 2012) Sensitivity to context From an interpersonal perspective, this implies alertness to social behavioral cues and the suitability and social acceptability of emotional displays.(Davidson and Begley, 2012;Prati et al., 2003) Attention This is the tendency of a person to focus, despite distractions (emotionally, physiologically, psychologically, and environmentally) (Davidson and Begley, 2012;Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005) Source: Summary of authors reviewed.Garud et al., 2015;Katzenbach and Smith, 1993).From a conceptual point of view, this research considers a framework based on the theory of affective neuroscientists Richard Davidson and Sharon Begley (2012), which offers concomitant insights from neuroscience into people"s emotional orientation and emotional styles.Davidson and Begley (2012) define emotional style as consisting of six dimensions that present "a consistent way of responding to the experiences of our lives".Given the applicability of the model to innovation team composition, the present study investigates and explores the six dimensions through an industrial psychology lens.Anchored by two central points of disciplinary departure, this study presents concise summary (Table 1) of Davidson and Begley (2012) findings, which are complemented by perspectives drawn from the existing literature on management, behavioral science and neuroscience.

Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework considers emotions as foundational to all behaviors, arguing that an individual"s emotive outlook impacts on the performance outcome of his or her innovation team.The work of numerous scholars in affective neuroscience as well as behavioral and management studies is acknowledged (Anderson et al., 2004;Antoni and Hertel, 2009;Ashkanansy and Ashton-James, 2005;Burger and Staake, 2010;Curado et al., 2015;De Jong and Den Hartog, 2007;Dyer et al., 2011;Davidson and Begley, 2012;Gilson et al., 2015a;Goffin and Mitchell, 2014;Hughes and Terrell, 2007;Hülsheger et al., 2009;Kaufmann, 2015;Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013;Miron-Spektor et al., 2011;Perretti and Negro, 2007;Sekerka and Fredrickson, 2008;Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2011;Stanley and Burrows, 2001;Sun et al., 2017;Von Krogh et al., 2000;West and Anderson, 1996).This paper proposes that successful innovation is influenced by conceptual, emotional and contextual factors.The contextual factors are observable "surface-level compositional" and demographic factors, such as experience, age, current team composition criteria and skills; emotive outlook, brain chemistry, and psychological and personality traits, among other characteristics, are the "deep-level compositional" factors (Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2011).The authors recommend Bell (2007) for an indepth discussion of such factors.

METHODOLOGY
Although the literature acknowledges that team composition is important for successful innovation implementation, there is a lack of sufficient and clear team composition criteria (Fleming, 2004;LaFasto and Larson, 2001;Tikas and Akhilesh, 2017).Bell (2007) confirms that the subject of optimal team composition, based on team member characteristics, has not been sufficiently studied.There is increasing concern that innovation will remain a process of generating ideas, unless execution improves (Dyer et al., 2011;Klein and Knight, 2005).Crossan and Apaydin (2010, p.14) argue "that often [an] unrecognized gap exists between the adoption (decision to implement or use) of innovation and actual implementation".Additional complexities appear when additional or new team members are recruited (Mello and Ruckes, 2006).There is a growing practice in African organizations of so-called "just-intime teams" (Hughes and Terrell, 2007, p. 15), which aim to use the talents of individuals in a contextually appropriate way (Hill et al., 2014).At the same time they rely on the strengths of all members to meet task requirements (Gilson et al., 2015b).We therefore included examples in this study on the team dynamics of such justin-time teams.
"Mindset differences" in innovation teams present another challenge to management (Sun et al., 2017), giving rise to questions about the composition of innovation implementation teams.Although behavior is shaped by several contextual factors, an emotionally and intellectually fit individual can be viewed as foundational to the performance of innovation projects.The research problem that this study addresses is the gap in the literature on guidelines for optimal innovation team composition.
The study adopts a mixed-method convergent design to arrive pragmatically at the proposed emotive outlook framework.This study uses a side-by-side comparison of quantitative and qualitative data to demonstrate the convergence and divergence of the proposed results.Mixed-method research methodologies are increasingly used for business and management studies.Additional insights are often derived from the complementary nature of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies and the triangulation of different data sources (Bryman, 2006;Creswell and Clark, 2011;Jick, 1979;Venkatesh et al., 2013).

Study sample
Data were gathered using a critical case sampling scheme.In addition, the sampling approaches for the quantitative and qualitative strands were respectively judgmental and purposive.The target population was drawn from 28 commercial banks and six non-bank institutions within the financial services industry in Namibia and South Africa.The participating organizations accentuated innovations as a strategic service differentiator or customer retention driver.They consisted of a Southern Africanlisted insurance-based company (referred to as the "International Case"), which identified nine participating countries (Botswana, Kenya, Lesotho, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia), and three independent Namibian institutions (referred to as the "National Case").The sample consisted of 110 participants for the qualitative strand and 113 for the quantitative strand (223 in total).The Executive Offices and Human Resources Departments of the respective organizations identified the participants and divided them into successful and unsuccessful groups.This division was based on previous successful and unsuccessful innovation project participation, and not on specific personality traits.Successful innovation project team outcomes were defined as both useful and acceptable to an internal or external customer (Antoni and Hertel, 2009).All of the participants were permanently employed by their respective organizations, had been members of a team that implemented a project, and were knowledgeable about innovation and championing an innovation project.Computer literacy was required for completion of the online assessments.There were no other requirements relating to gender, age, years of service, or hierarchical position.

Qualitative data collection
The qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews (innovation champions) and focus group discussions (members of innovation teams).The data were initially separated into data for the International and National Cases, using schedules refined through a preliminary exploration (Swart-Opperman and April, 2015).

Quantitative collection
The included assessments were pilot tested for relevance in the evaluation of emotive outlook (Swart-Opperman and April, 2015).They were also selected on the basis of relevance to organizational contexts, online administration features, high levels of validity and reliability, and comprehensive research histories (Cattell et al.,  2006; JvR Psychometrics, n.d.; Strengthscope ® Technical and User  Manual, 2011; Hughes et al., 2014).The emotional style questionnaire (Davidson and Begley, 2012) was included because it is the only available assessment that specifically measures emotional style.Individual emotive outlook profiles were assessed using three instruments: the 16PF5 (The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, fifth edition, South African English Version), the EQ-1 2.0 ® (Emotional Quotient Inventory) and the Emotional Style Questionnaire (Davidson and Begley, 2012).The emotive outlook patterns or profiles of the different teams were assessed using the StrengthScope ® , developed by James Brook and Dr. Paul Brewerton (StrengthScope ® Technical and User Manual, 2011) and the Team Emotional and Social Intelligence Survey (TESI ® ).The TESI was developed by Marcia Hughes, Henry Thompson, andJames Terrell in 2006 (Hughes et al., 2014 for a detailed description).

Quantitative data analysis
Both descriptive and inferential statistics were considered appropriate.IBM SP55 Statistics 23, a software package specifically designed for the social sciences, was used to perform statistical analyses.We applied the non-directional t-test best suited to smaller sample sizes to carry out an inferential statistical analysis and non-parametric tests, including the Mann-Whitney U-test.The descriptive statistics reported effect sizes (ES), specifically (1988).The benchmarks "small," "medium" and "large" (Vogt et al., 2014) in this study indicate practical significance and the impact of the evidence on the phenomena studied (Coe, 2002;Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2004).

Qualitative data analysis
Based on the recommendations of Rabiee (2004), Harding (2013), and Saldaña (2014) as well as Miles et al. (2014), the analysis followed six distinctive steps; these involved data preparation, first cycle coding, second cycle coding resulting in sub-categories and categories, and the aggregation of categories into sub-themes and themes.Following these steps provided the analysis with a datagrounded audit trail (Carcary, 2009).Personal reflection formed an important part of the process to address the researchers" filters.Coding of responses was inductive and undertaken from a phenomenological perspective.An external reviewer framed the focus group coding with the help of the network functions of ATLAS.ti.Network views allowed the researchers to take different perspectives on the data, check their assumptions, and confirm both linkages and the over-arching intuitive and deductive logic of the qualitative analysis (Friese, 2014).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results suggest that individuals in innovation teams  2).
The empirical data (Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6) reveal that cognition (abstract reasoning, critical thinking skills, and focus) as well as intra-psychological strengths (emotional intelligence, realistic self-perception, emotional selfawareness, self-expression, a preference for independent behavior, and self-regard) are differentiators of success for innovation team members.Interpersonal relationships within teams are of lesser importance, confirming the views of Jordan and Troth (2004), Offermann et al. (2004) and Prati et al. (2003) that "allowable levels of emotional display" (Prati et al., 2003) and the "level of performance" of members of task-focused teams "takes precedence over their satisfaction" (Prati et al., 2003, 24).
For the purposes of this framework, the proposed emotive outlook categories have been defined and discussed.First, an individual"s emotional awareness and intra-psychological ability to manage emotional cues and triggers is termed: emotional self-management.We show that this is an important differentiator, indicating whether individual team members are likely to contribute toward their teams" success.This study furthermore reveals the role of emotional self-awareness as a differentiator for successful team members, based on honesty in selfappraisals and the acknowledgement of weaknesses.The validity of this assertion is based on higher emotional intelligence scores and accurate self-perceptions.
Mental acuity, proposed as the second priority, is the ability to be mentally focused and mindful, despite emotional or situational distractions.The findings of the study suggest that mental acuity could be an important factor to consider in innovation team composition, based on the higher levels of reported abstract reasoning and focus of successful team members.The empirical data show that critical thinking, as a sub-theme of mental acuity, is a group strength for successful teams, whose members derive energy from systematic and objective problem-solving.
Overall, the findings of this study indicate that a detailed orientation is a thinking strength of unsuccessful team members.They tend to undertake detailed analyses even when the circumstances change and a more flexible approach would be more beneficial to completion of a project.While continuous analysis energizes team members with a detailed orientation, it is generally not conducive to successful innovation.A lack of focus was also reported: some team members were easily distracted, compromising project completion and team success.According to our qualitative findings, the ability to pay attention to the job at hand amidst emotional and situational distractions is an important success criterion.
Next, the construct of self/reality orientation, posited as positivity and an uplifting emotion, reflects emotional fitness and empowerment.However, successful team members were realistically positive, supported by higher levels of emotional intelligence, feelings of self-regard, self-confidence, and optimism as emotional strengths.This study reveals the role of emotional self-awareness as a differentiator for successful team members, based on honesty in self-appraisals and the acknowledgement of weaknesses.
The fourth priority, emotional fitness/change agility, implies emotional energy and the resulting capacity to endure despite facing obstacles.Our results suggest that feelings of confidence, as well as personal accountability, may lead to higher resilience.Another consideration is that the cumulative effect of the individuals" resilience could construe resilience as an emotional driver for the team.Successful team members are perceived as unwavering, a trait considered desirable.
Lastly, social fitness implies that a team member is emotionally fit to engage in socially appropriate conversations and interactions.Social sensitivity is emotional adeptness, coupled with appropriate emotional sensitivity in social situations.The quantitative and qualitative results are presented below.

Quantitative results
The completion rate of the questionnaires was 59% for the unsuccessful groups and 58% for the successful groups, representing 75 participants.The statistical and *Significant at p<0.05.
Table 5. Team A (Unsuccessful Team Members) and Team B (Successful Team Members): EQ-i 2 .

Identified strengths Potential weaknesses Team A (unsuccessful)
Team B (successful) Team A (unsuccessful) Team B (successful) Emotional cluster

Thinking cluster
Detail orientation Critical thinking Common sense practically-significant differences between successful and unsuccessful team members are presented in Table 2.Only the significant results are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Non-significant differences were reported for the Emotional Style Questionnaire (Davidson and Begley, 2012) and for the TESI.A summary of the reported

StrengthScope
® results are presented in Table 5, as the instrument did not lend itself to calculating significance.

Qualitative results
The innovation champions (in senior and top management positions) were interviewed face-toface (12) or by telephone (8) about their experiences and perceptions of the emotional behaviors of innovation team members.The data were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.The interviews lasted 45 to 80 min.
Initially, some of the innovation champions  were categorized as champions of successful or unsuccessful projects; this was ceased in response to organizational sensitivities.Sixteen focus group discussions, divided into nine successful and seven unsuccessful groups (74 participants), took place, with nine held face-to-face and seven via audio-conferencing.The average number of participants per focus group was 4.6.The discussions lasted between 45 minutes and 2.5 hours, with an average duration of 1.5 h.The first line-by-line cycle coding process resulted in 460 codes for the International Case interviews, and 300 codes for the focus group discussions.A similar result was achieved in the National Case, with 365 codes for interviews, and 423 codes for focus group discussions.The codes were reduced during the second cycle of coding, when codes with similar meanings were grouped into sub-categories, reducing the number of codes for International Case interviews to 15 and for focus group discussions to 11 categories, grouped into four themes and 15 sub-themes respectively.The National Case was grouped into 4 themes and 15 sub-themes and had 10 categories with 10 sub-categories.The coding produced seven primary themes: (1) innovation drivers; (2) innovation identity; (3) innovation enablers; (4) innovation disablers; (5) emotional enablers; (6) conversations, and (7) generation Y (Table 7).Examples related to individuals" interpretation of innovation and views of their companies" and the industry"s approach to innovation.
Emotional and systemic cues were reported, followed by emotive outlook and emotional prompts.The contextual factors identified as impacting team outcomes are leadership, a team"s perceived support, and organizational culture (Anderson et al., 2004;Curral et al., 2001;Subramanian, 2012).These findings were reported using an analogy to convey the assertive force of the qualitative dimensions of the study.It is suggested that direct observable drivers and constraining factors, such as employer brand and participants" professions, should be easily identifiable.
Less easily observable enablers and disablers at the organizational level are reported and presented as emotional-(positivity and innovation mentality), structural-(technology and human resources structure) or systemic prompts (work routines and innovation processes).The next level reflects team-level factors lie deeper and are more difficult to observe, as they are often dominated by organizational events.At the deepest level, team contexts are created by factors such as sense-making processes, conversation scripts, Generation Y, company soul or spirituality, and management manners.For example, Generation Y participants expressed a need to be valued for their technological astuteness within a team.We suggest that these factors can shape a team"s performance and be seen as differentiators for innovation success.

Emotional management/self
Emotional self-awareness clearly strengthens selfcontrol, thus supporting the argument that interpersonal management is a competence (Du Chatenier et al., 2010;Tsakalerou, 2016).The literature confirms that emotionally intelligent individuals are more willing than others to share knowledge that can positively influence organizational innovation (Cherniss, 2001;Goh and Lim, 2014;Prati et al., 2003;Tsakalerou, 2016).
In addition, Jordan and Troth (2004, p.211) argue that individuals with higher levels of EI seem to "… perform better on tasks than teams whose members [have] lower levels of emotional intelligence …".Côté and Miners (2006) make the similar observation that EI predicts job performance.Results obtained by Barsade and Gibson (2007) as well as Quoiback and Hansenne ( 2009) are consistent with our findings that emotional management and thus emotional control positively impact team performance.Elfenbein, Druskat, Sala and Mount highlight the fact that emotionally intelligent team members are more skilled at communication and conflict resolution, which can in turn enhance team performance.
Conversely, the study findings indicate that unsuccessful group members are energized by egotistical needs for self-improvement, self-enhancement, and the pursuit of self-interest.This corroborates Burger and Staake (2010), who find that members who are "too egotistical" have a negative impact on the output of innovation teams.Unsuccessful team members attach importance to self-improvement and self-enhancement; the feedback they receive from others is therefore very important.Feedback also increases their vulnerability and can negatively impact their emotional control.

Mental acuity
Based on the meta-analysis of 19 studies, Devine and Philips (2001) arrive at a finding similar to the finding of this study.They conclude that "team-level cognitive ability may be a better predictor of performance for ad-hoc teams facing a relatively complex task with a finite life span" (Devine and Phillips, 2001,p.525).Archibald et al. (2013) assert that innovation team members have a certain "cognitive readiness", consisting off capabilities, task knowledge and disciplinary expertise, while Hülsheger et al. (2009) and Tikas and Akhilesh (2017) link task orientation and thus focus to improved team performance.Anderson et al. (2004, p.150) list general intelligence, different thinking styles, "task-specific knowledge," and "ideational fluency" as organizational determinants that facilitate innovation at the individual level.In addition, Du Chatenier (2010) highlights the importance of intellectual discernment in distinguishing facts from trivial information for team members.Jordan and Troth (2004) insightfully observe that team members" emotional control and intelligence can improve problem solving and output of their teams.The literature refers to this as "team-level focus".We postulate that the cognitive abilities of individual team members are aggregated into the reported team strength (Tikas and Akhilesh, 2017).
Du Chatenier et al. (2010) describe such a focus as the ability to "control and coordinate", while Tikas and Akhilesh (2017) call it "total dedication towards achieving [its] targets".In addition Côté and Miners (2006) report a positive correlation between cognitive and emotional intelligence.However, Scott and Bruce (1994, p.601) make the opposite point, arguing that a "… systematic problem-solving style had a direct negative effect on innovative behavior".Archibald et al. (2013) label the tendency to over-analyze and strive for perfection as a "cognitive constraint," while Miron-Spektor et al. (2011) affirm the negative impact that attentiveness-to-detail can have on the performance and risk-orientation of team members.
The quantitative and qualitative results of this study are not convergent on mental acuity, as the quantitative results measured a different aspect of focus.Our qualitative results indicate that participants were easily distracted by either emotional or situational cues; especially in the unsuccessful teams members lost interest quickly, excusing themselves before the meetings were actually over.Also, they lacked interest in the team goals and became disengaged and nonparticipative.

Self/Reality orientation
Although the proposed priority implies that the role self/reality orientation as an innovation driver for successful teams is subordinate, this result is in line with Quoibach and Hansenne (2009), who positively relate optimism and mood regulation to team outputs.Conversely, Anderson et al. (2004) note that a negative mood is a "mood state" that can facilitate innovation at the individual level.In addition, Barsade and Gibson (2007) maintain that negative emotions "may enhance negotiating outcomes", especially "discrete negative emotions".
The qualitative findings of this study corroborate the view that realistic positivity is a characteristic of successful team members.This supports the views of Whetten and Cameron (2016), Barsade and Gibson and Lin and Huang (2010) that stronger feelings of self-regard, self-esteem, and self-efficacy, together with resilience, can improve individual and team performance.Moenkenmeyer et al. (2013, p.636) confirm self-confidence "to be a crucial prerequisite for successful engagement in innovation projects".In addition, Anderson et al. (2004) list self-confidence as a facilitator of innovation at the individual level; in the present study self-confidence surprisingly features as an identified emotional strength and driver for unsuccessful teams.
The qualitative findings reveal a tendency towards a negative outlook, which may have affected the selfconfidence and task outputs of unsuccessful team members.Lerner and Keltner (2000) as well as Quoibach and Hansenne (2009) note that negativity adversely affects team judgments and outputs.

Emotional fitness/change agility
Several studies report on emotional fitness and change agility.Emotionally fit behaviors include overt and suggested displays of resilience, emotional independence, and self-directedness with a preference for independent decision-making.For example, Anderson et al. (2004) argue that a tolerance for ambiguity increases resilience and enhances innovation at the individual level.It has been postulated that an internal locus of control (referred to by Brooks and Goldstein (2004, p. 3) as a "resilient mindset") contributes to team success.Reivich and Shatté (2002) propose a "resilience quotient" and couple resilience with emotional regulation, optimism, focus, and self-efficacy.The emotional independence of resilient team members enables them to distinguish "between rejection of his[/her] idea and rejection of him[/her] as a person while [remaining] engaged" (Hill et al. 2014, p. 30).It is interesting that Moenkenmeyer et al. (2012) propose "innovator resilience potential" as the ability to enhance a person"s recovery from project failure experiences.This study highlights the fact execution that is, focusing on the results and flexibility can energize unsuccessful teams.We are aware that when the focus of team members changes constantly, due to increased flexibility, they are likely to appear less resilient.The reported qualitative findings corroborate this point: team members" inner conflicts and despondency, which are reported as resulting from their flexibility orientation, lead to feelings of non-achievement.

Social sensitivity
Although social sensitivity and interpersonal relationships rank as a low priority, members of successful teams were both socially and emotionally sensitive (as reflected in their higher EI scores).Jordan and Troth (2004) as well as Quoibach and Hansenne (2000) support the lower prioritization of social sensitivity, asserting that a toostrong focus on the emotions of others can result in poorer team performance.
Mayer, Salovey and Caruso ( 2004) argue that higher levels of EI demonstrate "verbal, social, and other intelligence", thus implying improved interpersonal relationships, The current findings show that the selfawareness (inner-directedness) and emotional selfmanagement of successful team members can enhance their awareness of others" emotions, which impacts on team outcomes.While Lin and Huang (2010) associate the social intuition of team members with "relational capital", Whetten and Cameron (2016) argue that effective and accurate responses to the emotional cues of others, that is, social intuition, lead to improved social interactions.However, the results of the present study are non-significant in the area of overall group emotionaland social intelligence; we believe that this finding reflects the nature of innovation teams, which are generally ad-hoc and short-lived.This could be explained based on the claims of Elfenbein et al. (2006), who postulates that these types of intelligences develop over time during the team formation process.
The most striking result was that neither group reported relational strengths as drivers.It is possible that team members did not know each other well enough; the relatively short duration and ad-hoc nature of innovation teams may have prevented the development of deeper team relationships (Jordan and Troth, 2004).This result is contrary to the view of Kratzer et al. (2005), who argue that moderate friend relationships as well as not merely task-related communications have a positive impact on the output of innovation teams.Although our reported qualitative observations support the notion that members of successful teams are interpersonally sensitive, the quantitative results confirm that the intra-psychological functioning of individuals has a bigger influence on the success of innovation implementation teams (Christensen and Raynor, 2003).

Social fitness
This category had the lowest priority as a success differentiator for innovation team members.Although more value was attached to being intra-psychologically strong, this study revealed higher EI scores for members of successful teams, implying that members of successful teams tend to be socially fit, with more "social astute[ness]" (Du Chatenier et al., 2010).Examples include the team members" ability to express themselves assertively and to form self-perceptions through independent thinking, rendering themselves less dependent on others.It seems possible that EI team members will have positive attitudes toward their teams (Offerman et al., 2004).Pearsall and Ellis (2009) discovered a link between members" assertive behaviors and successful team outputs.Similarly, the qualitative findings of this study confirm that members of successful teams are experienced as open-minded, respectful in their communication, and thus "assertive".They also behave constructively toward other team members through by displaying uplifting and positive emotions and thereby encourage each other.This finding corroborates Ruef (2002, p.578) observation that "the balance of tensions toward and away from innovation is largely determined by aspects of an individual"s relational context: the strength of diversity and the content of network ties."It can therefore be argued that members with weaker existing relationship ties can have a positive influence on innovation and problem-solving behaviors.Jordan and Troth (2004) affirm the potential positive or negative effect of existing team relationships on team outcomes.
In the case of the present study, the quantitative and qualitative results diverge.The quantitative results confirm the importance of intra-psychological strengths, while the qualitative findings favor appropriate sociallyadapted behaviors.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study is to contribute to the current debate on criteria for innovation team composition and thus to enhance "team-level innovation capability" (Tikas and Akhilesh, 2017).The findings detailed earlier clearly show that the outcomes of innovation teams are influenced by the emotional disposition of team members, described as their "emotive outlook".The proposed conceptual framework also provides insights on "phenomena and influencing environmental factors on teams" (Burger and Staake, 2010), by focusing on team composition at the individual, group, and organizational levels.The emotion categories captured within the framework do not stand alone, but create a synergy.This confirms that the principle of "the functional complementarity of emotionality and rationality" is specifically important for incremental innovation teams (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995) (Figure 1).
To create an environment conducive to success, Swart-Opperman and April 367 innovation implementation teams should have relatively controlled emotional expression.As the team members" past successful experiences have strong associative power to predict success, it is recommended that team members who have experienced unsuccessful team outcomes be paired with team members who have succeeded and can influence outcome expectations (West and Anderson, 1996;Barret, 2017).
The proposed emotive outlook framework (Table 7) can provide guidance for the selection of emotionally and intellectually fit team members for innovation implementation.It can also offer predictive value and "a prescription for action" (Barret, 2017) in relation to the incremental outcomes of innovation teams.Clearly, emotive outlook also reflects the innovation work behaviors that individuals engage in during innovation projects (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007;Miron-Spektor et al., 2011).
In view of the unique identities of innovation implementation teams, the implied level of group efficacy (the overall disciplinary expertise and emotional and cognitive fitness of members) and performance norms that govern the acceptance of group membership, the framework detailed above can serve as a guideline for recruitment.Organizations are also advised to reevaluate organizational approaches that can impact on innovation directly, such as human resources practice, alternative views on the availability of relevant talent, technology, and organizational routines.
In conclusion, it seems like the proposed emotive outlook framework is generally implicitly supported by the extant literature.This study further corroborates and formalizes these implications by providing a concrete framework from which guidelines for innovation team composition can be derived.

LIMITATIONS
Like any study, this study has certain limitations.Firstly, the lack of validated instruments to specifically assess emotive or emotional outlook necessitated the use of five instruments.As one of the instruments assessed emotional intelligence, it is important to note Barrett"s (2017) comment that, "there is still no generally acceptable definition or measure of EI" (p.180).Secondly, research fatigue among participating organizations, pressing business opportunities and priorities, and the time needed for interviews and focus group meetings, resulted in non-attendance of participants and continuous rescheduling of activities.The findings of this study may not be transferable to industries other than the banking/financial services industry, as variables impacting on innovation are context-specific.The sample was limited in several ways; sample characteristics could have negatively influenced sample sizes, p-values, and effect-size measures (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2004).In addition, the geographical spread of the participants made it difficult to travel to the various countries involved, which posed a limitation for qualitative data collection.As a result, some of the interviews and focus group discussions were conducted telephonically or via audio conferencing, which may have affected the richness of the information gathered.Lastly, personal researcher biases can never be eliminated completely; as Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2004) note: "bias and prejudice will always be a concern and limitation".

AREAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS
The areas of future research fall mainly within the discipline of industrial psychology, although multidisciplinary research would also be valuable.As the results are promising, researchers are encouraged to validate the proposed emotive outlook framework for innovation implementation team members in industries other than the banking/financial services industry.Furthermore there is a need to explore any differences that exist in the emotive outlook profiles of innovation teams in companies that focus on radical innovation (McDermott and O"Connor, 2002).
An understanding of generational profile differences and their "generational impacts" (Gilson et al., 2015a) could shed light on the impact of team dynamics on successful outcomes.It would also be useful to focus on Generation Y employees (Mello and Ruckes, 2006), given that they "represent [company workforce] growth and evolution" (Mello, 2015).Building on the recommendation of Du Chatenier et al. (2010), the proposed framework could be validated for open innovation teams, as continuing shortage of key and critical skills is likely to increase its use as a preferred choice for innovation implementation.In addition, the applicability of the proposed framework to virtual innovation teamsas a developing area for innovation implementation (Gilson et al., 2015b) could be investigated.Further work is needed to test the theory that companies within the financial services industry should consider adopting a "fast-followers" mindset (Williamson and Yin, 2014), instead of being trendsetters or cutting-edge innovators.
As self-, organizational, and ethnic culture influence the emotional experiences of people, interesting insights might be gained through the investigation of cultural differences in emotive outlook profiles of innovation team members.Research methodology remains an evolving area, specifically data reduction from codes to themes inherent in the qualitative data.We therefore encourage the provision of additional insights to qualitative researchers on the evaluation of their unique data, as well as ways of approaching the reasoning process with regard to inductive, deductive, or abductive coding approaches.
The practice implications relate mainly to member selection and the composition of innovation teams.Human Resources professionals are encouraged to pay attention to and possibly review current organizational assessment and selection practices when recruiting or allocating members to innovation teams.Innovation practices could be strengthened and supported by innovation-friendly recruitment, selection, training, development, talent management, and performance management, as well as remuneration practices.

Table 1 .
Emotional style dimensions with complementary perspectives.

Table 2 .
Proposed framework: Emotive outlook for emotionally/intellectually Fit team member in innovation implementation teams.

Table 3 .
Summary of quantitative results.

Table 4 .
Team A (unsuccessful team members) and Teams B (successful team members): 16PF5.

Table 7 .
Summary of qualitative results.