The growing importance of publication-related quantitative indicators in the development of academic careers has driven the publish or perish culture, making the study of scientific productivity increasingly relevant. In this context, understanding which management practices in scientific teams help improve the performance of members is a pertinent contribution.
This paper adds empirical substance to the discussion by analysing the moderating effect of (1) leadership style (task- or relationship-oriented) and (2) human resources management practices (HRM) on the relationship between human capital and scientific productivity. To test our hypotheses, we employ hierarchical multiple regression analysis using perception-based data collected from a sample of 117 management scholars.
The results reveal critical insights into the determinants of scientific productivity, providing valuable guidance for designing management strategies within these units. Specifically, the results provide empirical support for the moderating effects of task- and relationship-oriented leadership styles, although these were only partially confirmed. Furthermore, the hypotheses regarding the moderating role of HRM practices were supported specifically for documentation and external collaborative practices, while other HRM dimensions remained unsupported.
The study is based on data from the management field and relies on the participation of a single member from each scientific team as an informant to test the hypothesis. Future research could replicate this study by examining institutional differences or exploring other fields of knowledge.
This study highlights the need for universities to provide adequate support to principal investigators through appropriate training and resources, enabling them to develop the capabilities required to lead scientific teams effectively. Moreover, the findings have important implications for the internal management of research groups, as they can be leveraged to strengthen academic human capital and, in turn, enhance institutional performance.
The results of the study have interesting implications for principal investigators (PI), offering a useful guide for improving their members' scientific productivity.
