Perspective—Rethinking Teams: From Bounded Membership to Dynamic Participation

References

• Abrams D, Hogg MA (2003) Collective identity: Group membership and self-conception. Hogg MA, Tindale RS, eds. Group Processes (Blackwell, Malden, MA), 425–460.Google Scholar
• Alderfer CP (1976) Change processes in organizations. Dunnette M, ed. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Rand McNally, Chicago), 1591–1638.Google Scholar
• Alderfer CP (1977) Group and intergroup relations. Hackman JR, Suttle JL, eds. Improving Life at Work (Goodyear, Santa Monica, CA), 227–296.Google Scholar
• Aldrich HE, Herker D (1977) Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Acad. Management Rev. 2(2):217–230.Crossref, 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, Caldwell DF (1992) Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37(4):634–661.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ancona DG, Caldwell DF (1998) Rethinking team composition from the outside in. Neale MA, Mannix EA, Gruenfeld DH, eds. Research on Managing Groups and Teams (JAI Press, Stamford, CT), 21–38.Google Scholar
• Argote L, Insko CA, Yovetich N, Romero AA (1995) Group learning curves: The effects of turnover and task complexity on group performance. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 25(6):512–529.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arrow H, McGrath JE (1995) Membership dynamics in groups at work: A theoretical framework. Cummings LL, Staw BM, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 (Elsevier), 373–411.Google Scholar
• Bechky BA (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organ. Sci. 14(3):312–330.Link, Google Scholar
• Bechky BA (2006) Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations. Organ. Sci. 17(1):3–21.Link, Google Scholar
• Bertolotti F, Mattarelli E, Vignoli M, Macrì DM (2015) Exploring the relationship between multiple team membership and team performance: The role of social networks and collaborative technology. Res. Policy 44(4):911–924.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bikard M, Murray F, Gans JS (2015) Exploring trade-offs in the organization of scientific work: Collaboration and scientific reward. Management Sci. 61(7):1473–1495.Link, Google Scholar
• Bresman H (2010) External learning activities and team performance: A multimethod field study. Organ. Sci. 21(1):81–96.Link, Google Scholar
• Bresnen M, Goussevskaia A, Swan J (2004) Embedding new management knowledge in project-based organizations. Organ. Stud. 25(9):1535–1555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Converse SA (1993) Shared mental models in expert decision-making teams. Castellan NJ Jr, ed. Current Issues in Individual and Group Decision Making (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ), 221–246.Google Scholar
• Carlile PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15(5):555–568.Link, Google Scholar
• Carton AM, Cummings JN (2012) A theory of subgroups in work teams. Acad. Management Rev. 37(3):441–470.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandler GN, Honig B, Wiklund J (2005) Antecedents, moderators, and performance consequences of membership change in new venture teams. J. Bus. Venturing 20(5):705–725.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi JN (2002) External activities and team effectiveness: Review and theoretical development. Small Group Res. 33(2):181–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi H-S, Levine JM (2004) Minority influence in work teams: The impact of newcomers. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 40(2):273–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chudoba KM, Wynn E, Lu M, Watson-Manheim MB (2005) How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization. Inform. Systems J. 15(4):279–306.Crossref, 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
• Collins R (2004) Interaction Ritual Chains (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cramton CD (2001) The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences in geographically dispersed teams. Organ. Sci. 12(3): 346–371.Link, Google Scholar
• Cummings JN (2004) Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Sci. 50(3): 352–364.Link, Google Scholar
• Cummings JN, Haas MR (2012) So many teams, so little time: Time allocation matters in geographically dispersed teams. J. Organ. Behav. 33(3):316–341.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Dreu CK, West MA (2001) Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. J. Appl. Psych. 86(6):1191–1201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dibble R, Gibson C (2017) Crossing team boundaries: A theoretical model of team boundary permeability and a discussion of why it matters. Human Relations, ePub ahead of print November 28, https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717735372.Google Scholar
• Dougherty D (1992) Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organ. Sci. 3(2):179–202.Link, Google Scholar
• Edmondson AC (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(2):350–383.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edmondson AC (2012)Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Edmondson AC, Dillon JA, Roloff KS (2007) Three perspectives on team learning: Outcome improvement, task mastery, and group process. Acad. Management Ann. 1:269–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edmondson AC, Haas MR, Macomber J, Zuzul T (2015) The role of megaprojects and multiplier firms in leading change for sustainability. Henderson RM, Gulati R, Tushman M, eds. Leading Sustainable Change: An Organizational Perspective, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 273–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellis APJ, Hollenbeck JR, Ilgen DR, Porter CO, West BJ, Moon H (2003) Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. J. Appl. Psych. 88(5):821–834.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske ST, Taylor SE (2008) Attention and encoding. Fiske ST, Taylor SE, eds. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture (McGraw-Hill, New York), 51–74.Google Scholar
• Gann DM, Salter AJ (2000) Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: The construction of complex products and systems. Res. Policy 29(7–8):955–972.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gardner HK (2017) Smart Collaboration: How Professionals and Their Firms Succeed by Breaking Down Silos (Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Gibson CB, Gibbs JL (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
• Guzzo RA, Dickson MW (1996) Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Rev. Psych. 47(1):307–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haas MR (2006) Acquiring and applying knowledge in transnational teams: The roles of cosmopolitans and locals. Organ. Sci. 17(3):367–384.Link, Google Scholar
• Haas MR, Cummings JN (2015) Barriers to knowledge seeking within MNC teams: Which matter most? J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 46(1): 36–62.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haas MR, Cummings JN (2017) Team innovation cycles. Argote L, Levine J, eds. Handbook of Group and Organizational Learning (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), ePub ahead of print August 2017, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190263362.013.8.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haas MR, Park S (2010) To share or not to share? Professional norms, reference groups, and information withholding among life scientists. Organ. Sci. 21(4):873–891.Link, Google Scholar
• Hackman JR (1987) The design of work teams. Lorsch J, ed. Handbook of Organizational Behavior (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ), 315–342.Google Scholar
• Hackman JR (2002) Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hackman JR (2003) Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. J. Organ. Behav. 24(8): 905–922.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hackman JR, Katz N (2010) Group behavior and performance. Fiske ST, Gilbert DT, Lindzey G, eds. Handbook of Social Psychology, 5th ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York), 1208–1251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hackman JR, Wageman R (2004) When and how team leaders matter. Staw BM, Kramer RM, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 (Elsevier, Oxford, UK), 37–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansen MT (1999) The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(1):82–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hargadon AB, Bechky BA (2006) When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organ. Sci. 17(4):484–500.Link, Google Scholar
• Hinds PJ, Bailey DE (2003)Out of sight, outof sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organ. Sci. 14(6):615–632.Link, Google Scholar
• Hinds PJ, Cramton CD (2013) Situated coworker familiarity: How site visits transform relationships among distributed workers. Organ. Sci. 25(3):794–814.Link, Google Scholar
• Hinds PJ, Mortensen M (2005) Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organ. Sci. 16(3):290–307.Link, Google Scholar
• Hirst G, Van Knippenberg D, Zhou J (2009) A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Acad. Management J. 52(2):280–293.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hobday M (2000) The project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Res. Policy 29(7–8): 871–893.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoegl M, Proserpio L (2004) Team member proximity and teamwork in innovative projects. Res. Policy 33(8):1153–1165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huckman RS, Staats BR, Upton DM (2009) Team familiarity, role experience, and performance: Evidence from Indian software services. Management Sci. 55(1):85–100.Link, Google Scholar
• Jehn KA (1997) A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(3):530–557.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kane AA (2010) Unlocking knowledge transfer potential: Knowledge demonstrability and superordinate social identity. Organ. Sci. 21(3):643–660.Link, Google Scholar
• Kane AA, Argote L, Levine JM (2005) Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 96(1): 56–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kirkman BL, Shapiro DL (2001) The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Acad. Management J. 44(3):557–569.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein KJ, Tosi H, Cannella AA Jr (1999) Multilevel theory building: Benefits, barriers, and new developments. Acad. Management Rev. 24(2):243–248.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein KJ, Beng-Chong L, Saltz JL, Mayer DM (2004) How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Acad. Management J. 47(6):952–963.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein KJ, Ziegert JC, Knight AP, Xiao Y (2006) Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 51(4):590–621.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lau DC, Murnighan JK (1998) Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Acad. Management Rev. 23(2):325–340.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leenders RTAJ, Contractor NS, DeChurch LA (2016) Once upon a time: Understanding team dynamics as relational event networks. Organ. Psych. Rev. 6(1):92–115.Google Scholar
• Lewis K, Herndon B (2011) Transactive memory systems: Current issues and future research directions. Organ. Sci. 22(5): 1254–1265.Link, 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
• Malhotra A, Majchrzak A, Carman R, Lott V (2001) Radical innovation without collocation: A case study at Boeing-Rocketdyne. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 25(2):229–249.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG, Simon HA (1958) Cognitive limits on rationality. Simon HA, ed. Organizations (John Wiley & Sons, New York), 136–171.Google Scholar
• Marks MA, Dechurch LA, Mathieu JE, Panzer FJ, Alonso A (2005) Teamwork in multiteam systems. J. Appl. Psych. 90(5):964–971.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marrone JA, Tesluk PE, Carson JB (2007) A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Acad. Management J. 50(6):1423–1439.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martins LL, Gilson LL, Maynard MT (2004) Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? J. Management 30(6):805–836.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Massey AP, Montoya-Weiss MM, Hung YT (2003) Because time matters: Temporal coordination in global virtual project teams. J. Management Inform. Systems 19(4):129–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matthews T, Whittaker S, Moran TP, Helsley SY, Judge TK (2012) Productive interrelationships between collaborative groups ease the challenges of dynamic and multi-teaming. Comput. Supported Cooperative Work 21(4–5):371–396.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organization trust. Acad. Management Rev. 20(3):709–734.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Metiu A, Rothbard NP (2013) Task bubbles, artifacts, shared emotion, and mutual focus of attention: A comparative study of the microprocesses of group engagement. Organ. Sci. 24(2):455–475.Link, Google Scholar
• Mohammed S, Ferzandi L, Hamilton K (2010) Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. J. Management 36(4):876–910.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moore DA, Kurtzberg TR, Thompson LL, Morris MW (1999) Long and short routes to success in electronically mediated negotiations: Group affiliations and good vibrations. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 77(1):22–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mortensen M (2014) Constructing the team: The antecedents and effects of membership model divergence. Organ. Sci. 25(3): 909–931.Link, Google Scholar
• Mortensen M, Hinds PJ (2002) Fuzzy teams: Boundary disagreement in distributed and collocated teams. Hinds PJ, Kiesler S, eds. Distributed Work (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 281–308.Google Scholar
• Mortensen M, Woolley AW, O’Leary MB (2007) Conditions enabling effective multiple team membership. Crowston K, Sieber S, Wynn E, eds. Virtuality and Virtualization (Springer, Boston), 215–228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murase T, Doty D, Wax A, DeChurch LA, Contractor NS (2012) Teams are changing: Time to “think networks.” Indust. Organ. Psych. 5(1):41–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neeley TB (2013) Language matters: Status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organizations. Organ. Sci. 24(2):476–497.Link, Google Scholar
• Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Ocasio W (1997) Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management J. 18(S1):187–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Leary MB, Mortensen M, Woolley AW (2011) Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Acad. Management Rev. 36(3):461–478.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Polzer JT (2004) How subgroup interests and reputations moderate the effect of organizational identification on cooperation. J. Management 30(1):71–96.Google Scholar
• Rentsch JR, Klimoski RJ (2001) Why do “great minds” think alike?: Antecedents of team member schema agreement. J. Organ. Behav. 22(2):107–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reynolds KJ, Turner JC, Haslam SA (2003) Social identity and self-categorization theories’ contribution to understanding identification, salience, and diversity in teams and organizations. Polzer JT, ed. Identity Issues in Groups (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), 279–304.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rulke DL, Galaskiewicz J (2000) Distribution of knowledge, group network structure, and group performance. Management Sci. 46(5):612–625.Link, Google Scholar
• Schiller S, Mandviwalla M (2007) Virtual team research: An analysis of theory use and a framework for theory appropriation. Small Group Res. 38(1):12–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schulte M, Cohen NA, Klein KJ (2012) The coevolution of network ties and perceptions of team psychological safety. Organ. Sci. 23(2):564–581.Link, Google Scholar
• Shapcott KM, Carron AV, Burke SM, Bradshaw MH, Estabrooks PA (2006) Member diversity and cohesion and performance in walking groups. Small Group Res. 37(6):701–720.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sherman SJ, Hamilton DL, Lewis AC (1999) Perceived entitativity and the social identity value of group memberships. Abrams D, Hogg MA, eds. Social Identity and Social Cognition (Blackwell, Oxford, UK), 80–110.Google Scholar
• Spencer-Rodgers J, Hamilton DL, Sherman SJ (2007) The central role of entitativity in sterotypes of social categories and task groups. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 92(3):369–388.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Srikanth K, Harvey S, Peterson R (2016) A dynamic perspective on diverse teams: Moving from the dual-process model to a dynamic coordination-based model of diverse team performance. Acad. Management Ann. 10(1):453–493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stahl GK, Maznevski ML, Voigt A, Jonsen K (2010) Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 41(4): 690–709.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steiner ID (1972) Group Process and Productivity (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Summers JK, Humphrey SE, Ferris GR (2012) Team member change, flux in coordination, and performance: Effects of strategic core roles, information transfer, and cognitive ability. Acad. Management J. 55(2):314–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sundstrom E, De Meuse KP, Futrell D (1990) Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. Amer. Psych. 45(2):120–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taylor A, Greve HR (2006) Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge recombination 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
• Valentine MA, Edmondson AC (2014) Team scaffolds: How mesolevel structures enable role-based coordination in temporary groups. Organ. Sci. 26(2):405–422.Link, Google Scholar
• Van den Bulte C, Moenaert RK (1998) The effects of R&D team co-location on communication patterns among R&D, marketing, and manufacturing. Management Sci. 44(11):S1–S18.Link, Google Scholar
• Van der Vegt GS, Bunderson JS (2005) Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Acad. Management J. 48(3):532–547.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wageman R (2001) How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organ. Sci. 12(5):559–577.Link, Google Scholar
• Wageman R, Gardner H, Mortensen M (2012) The changing ecology of teams: New directions for teams research. J. Organ. Behav. 33(3):301–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams KY, O’Reilly CA III (1998) Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Staw BM, Cummings LL, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), 77–140.Google Scholar
• Wilson DC, Salas E, Priest H, Andrews D (2007) Errors in the heat of the battle: Taking a closer look at shared cognition breakdowns through teamwork. Human Factors 49(2):243–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zika-Viktorsson A, Sundstrom P, Engwall M (2006) Project overload: An exploratory study of work and management in multi-project settings. Internat. J. Project Management 24(5):385–394.Crossref, Google Scholar