Excess May Do Harm: Investigating the Effect of Team External Environment on External Activities in Teams

References

• Adler PS, Borys B. (1996) Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41(1):61–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adler PS, Goldoftas B, Levine DI. (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organ. Sci. 10(1):43–68.Link, Google Scholar
• Aiken LS, West SG. (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Alderfer CP. (1976) Boundary relations and organizational diagnosis. , Meltzer M, Wickert F, eds. Humanizing Organizational Behavior (Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL), 142–175.Google Scholar
• Ancona D. (1987) Groups in organizations: Extending laboratory models. , Hendrick C, ed. Annual Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Group Processes and Intergroup Processes (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA), 207–231.Google Scholar
• Ancona DG. (1990) Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Acad. Management J. 33(2):334–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ancona DG, Bresman H. (2007) X-Teams : How to Build Teams That Lead, Innovate, and Succeed (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Ancona DG, Caldwell DF. (1988) Beyond task and maintenance: Defining external functions in groups. Group Organ. Stud. 13(4):468–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ancona DG, Caldwell DF. (1992) Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37(4):634–665.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ancona DG, Caldwell DF. (2000) Compose teams to assure successful boundary activity. , Locke EA, ed. Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior (Blackwell, Oxford, UK), 199–210.Google Scholar
• Ancona D, Bresman H, Kaeufer K. (2002) The comparative advantage of X-teams. MIT Sloan Management Rev. 43(3):33–39.Google Scholar
• Bechky BA. (2006) Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations. Organ. Sci. 17(1):3–21.Link, Google Scholar
• Bigley GA, Roberts KH. (2001) The incident command system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. Acad. Management J. 44(6):1281–1299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bliese P. (2000) Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. , Klein K, Kozlowski S, eds. Multi-Level Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), 349–381.Google Scholar
• Bresman H. (2010) External learning activities and team performance: A multimethod field study. Organ. Sci. 21(1):81–96.Link, Google Scholar
• Bunderson JS, Sutcliffe KM. (2003) Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. J. Appl. Psych. 88(3):552–560.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cannon-Bowers JA, Tannenbaum SI, Salas E, Volpe CE. (1995) Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. , Guzzo R, Salas E, eds. Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), 333–380.Google Scholar
• Carson SJ, Madhock A, Wu T. (2006) Uncertainty, opportunism and governance: The effects of volatility and ambiguity on formal and relational contracting. Acad. Management J. 49(5):1058–1077.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cattani G, Ferriani S. (2008) A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Admin. Sci. Quart. 19(6):824–844.Abstract, Google Scholar
• Choi JN. (2002) External activities and team effectiveness. Review and conceptual development. Small Group Res. 33(2):181–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clark KB, Fujimoto T. (1987) Overlapping problem solving in product development. . Technical report, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Cohen SG, Bailey DE. (1997) What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. J. Management 23(3):239–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Colman AD, Bexton WH. eds. (1975) Group Relations Reader (GREX, Sausalito, CA).Google Scholar
• Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM, Bingham CB. (2009) Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(3):413–452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dawson JF, Richter AW. (2006) Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. J. Appl. Psych. 91(4):917–926.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dayan M, Basarir A. (2010) Antecedents and consequences of team reflexivity in new product development projects. J. Bus. Indust. Marketing 25(1):19–29.Google Scholar
• Dess GG, Beard DW. (1984) Dimensions of organizational task environment. Admin. Sci. Quart. 29(1):52–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dibble R. (2010) Collaboration for the common good: An examination of internal and external adjustment. . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine, Irvine.Google Scholar
• Dyer L, Shafer R. (2003) Dynamic organizations. , Peterson RS, Mannix EA, eds. Managing People in Dynamic Organizations (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ), 7–40.Google Scholar
• Ferriani S, Corrado R, Boschetti C. (2005) Organizational learning under organizational impermanence: Collaborative ties in film project firms. J. Management Governance 9(3–4):257–285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galunic DC, Eisenhardt KM. (2001) Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Acad. Management J. 44(6):1229–1249.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ganzach Y. (1997) Misleading interaction and curvilinear terms. Psych. Methods 2(3):235–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J. (2004) The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Management J. 47(2):209–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibson CB, Dibble R. (2008) Culture inside and out: Developing the collective capability to externally adjust. , Ang S, Van Dyne L, eds. Advances in Cultural Intelligence (M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY), 221–240.Google Scholar
• Gibson CB, Gibbs J. (2006) Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 51(3):451–495.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibson CB, Zellmer-Bruhn M, Schwab DS. (2003) Team effectiveness in multinational organizations: Development and evaluation across contexts. Group Organ. Management 28(4):444–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gladstein DL. (1984) Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Admin. Sci. Quart. 29(4):499–517.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gresov C. (1989) Exploring fit and misfit with multiple contingencies. Admin. Sci. Quart. 34(3):431–453.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haas MR, Hansen MT. (2005) When using knowledge can hurt performance: The value of organizational capabilities in a management consulting company. Strategic Management J. 26(1):1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hackman JR. (2002) Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hale JE, Dulek RE, Hale DP. (2005) Crisis response communication challenges. J. Bus. Comm. 42(2):112–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison DA, Price KH, Bell MP. (1998) Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Acad. Management J. 41(1):96–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hawley A. (1968) Human ecology. , Sills DL, ed. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (Macmillan, New York), 328–337.Google Scholar
• Hoegl M, Weinkauf K, Gemuenden HG. (2004) Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organ. Sci. 15(1):38–55.Link, Google Scholar
• Homans G. (1950) The Human Group (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York).Google Scholar
• Hulsheger UR, Anderson N, Salgado JF. (2009) Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. J. Appl. Psych. 95(5):1128–1145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ito JK, Peterson RB. (1986) Effects of task difficulty and interunit interdependence on information processing systems. Acad. Management J. 29(1):139–149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johns G. (2006) The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Acad. Management Rev. 31(2):386–408.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz R. (1982) The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 27(1):81–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz R, Tushman M. (1979) Communication patterns, project performance, and task characteristics: An empirical evaluation and integration in an R&D setting. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 23(2):139–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kenny DA, LaVoie L. (1985) Separating individual and group effects. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 48(2):339–348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ. (2000) From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organ. Res. Methods 3(3):211–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lim BC, Ployhart RE. (2004) Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. J. Appl. Psych. 89(4):610–621.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maitlis S, Lawrence TB. (2007) Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations. Acad. Management J. 50(1):57–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Majchrzak A, Jarvenpaa SL, Hollingshead AB. (2007) Coordinating expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters. Organ. Sci. 18(1):147–161.Link, Google Scholar
• Marks MA, Zaccaro SJ, Mathieu JE. (2000) Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. J. Appl. Psych. 85(5):971–986.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marrone J. (2010) Team boundary spanning: A multi-level review of past research and proposals for the future. J. Management 36(4):911–938.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mathieu JE, Marks MS, Zaccaro SJ. (2001) Multi-team systems. , Anderson N, Ones D, Sinangil HK, Viswesvaran C, eds. International Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology (Sage, London), 289–313.Google Scholar
• McDaniel D, Gibson CB. (2012) Emergent ideas in emerging markets: The process of discovery in organizational research. , Wang CL, Ketchen DJ, Bergh DD, eds. East Meets West: Building Theoretical Bridges (Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, Vol. 8) (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK), 39–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer JW, Rowan B. (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony. Amer. J. Sociol. 83(2):340–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milliken FJ. (1987) Three types of uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. Acad. Management Rev. 12(1):133–143.Google Scholar
• Moon H, Hollenbeck JR, Humphrey SE, Ilgen DR, West B, Ellis APJ, Porter C. (2004) Asymmetric adaptability: Dynamic team structures as one-way streets. Acad. Management J. 47(5):681–695.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. (1995) The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Okhuysen GA. (2001) Structuring change: Familiarity and formal interventions in problem-solving groups. Acad. Management J. 44(4):794–808.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Leary MB, Cummings JN. (2007) The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quart. 31(3):433–452.Google Scholar
• Palmer I, Dunford R, Rura-Polley T, Baker E. (2001) Changing forms of organizing: Dualities in using remote collaboration technology in film production. J. Organ. Change Management 14(2):190–207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pedhazur EJ, Schmelkin LP. (1991) Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ).Google Scholar
• Puffer S, Meindl JR. (1992) The congruence of motives and incentives in a voluntary organization. J. Organ. Behav. 13(4):425–435.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sherif M. (1966) In Common Predicament: Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation (Addison-Wesley, Boston).Google Scholar
• Sinha KK, Van de Ven AH. (2005) Designing work within and between organizations. Organ. Sci. 16(4):389–408.Link, Google Scholar
• Subramaniam M, Youndt MA. (2005) The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovation. Acad. Management J. 48(3):450–463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sutcliffe KM. (1994) What executives notice: Accurate perceptions in top management teams. Acad. Management J. 37(5):1360–1378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taylor A, Greve HR. (2006) Superman or the Fantastic Four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Acad. Management J. 49(4):723–740.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tucker AL, Nembhard IM, Edmondson AC. (2007) Implementing new practices: An empirical study of organizational learning in hospital intensive care units. Management Sci. 53(6):894–907.Link, Google Scholar
• Van de Ven AH, Ferry DL. (1980) Measuring and Assessing Organizations (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Vera D, Crossan M. (2005) Improvisation and innovative performance in teams. Organ. Sci. 16(3):203–224.Link, Google Scholar
• von Hippel E. (1990) Task partitioning: An innovation process variable. Res. Policy 19(5):407–418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wageman R. (1995) Interdependence and group effectiveness. Admin. Sci. Quart. 40(1):145–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Waller MJ. (1999) The timing of adaptive responses to non-routine events. Acad. Management J. 42(2):127–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wasko J. (1994) Hollywood in the Information Age (University of Texas Press, Austin).Google Scholar
• Wong SS. (2004) Distal and local group learning: Performance trade-offs and tensions. Organ. Sci. 15(6):645–656.Link, Google Scholar
• Xu D, Pan Y, Beamish PW. (2004) The effect of regulative and normative distances on MNE ownership and expatriate strategies. Management Internat. Rev. 44(3):285–307.Google Scholar
• Zellmer-Bruhn ME. (2003) Interruptive evens and team knowledge acquisition. Management Sci. 49(4):514–528.Link, Google Scholar
• Zenger TR, Hesterly WS. (1997) The disaggregation of corporations: Selective intervention, high-powered incentives, and molecular units. Organ. Sci. 8(3):209–222.Link, Google Scholar