The Lasting Benefits of Teams: Tie Vitality After Teams Disband

References

• Adler PS, Kwon S (2002) Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Acad. Management Rev. 27(1):17–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arbuckle JL, Wothke W (1999) Amos Users’ Guide: Version 4.0 (Small Waters Corporation, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Argote L, Ren Y (2012) Transactive memory systems: A microfoundation of dynamic capabilities. J. Management Stud. 49(8):1375–1382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ashford SJ, Cummings LL (1983) Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 32(3):370–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balkundi P, Harrison DA (2006) Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Acad. Management J. 49(1):49–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bandura A, Walters RH (1977) Social Learning Theory (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Barrick MR, Stewart GL, Neubert MJ, Mount MK (1998) Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. J. Appl. Psych. 83(3):377–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Statistical Software 67(1):1–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell ST, Marentette BJ (2011) Team viability for long-term and ongoing organizational teams. Organ. Psych. Rev. 1(4):275–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bentler PM, Bonett DG (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psych. Bull. 88(3):588–606.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blatt R (2009) Tough love: How communal schemas and contracting practices build relational capital in entrepreneurial teams. Acad. Management Rev. 34(3):533–551.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blau PM (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Bollen KA, Long JS (1993) Testing Structural Equation Models (Sage Focus Editions, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Borgatti SP, Cross R (2003) A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Sci. 49(4):432–445.Link, Google Scholar
• Borgatti SP, Halgin DS (2011) On network theory. Organ. Sci. 22(5):1168–1181.Link, Google Scholar
• Brass DJ (1984) Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Admin. Sci. Quart. 29(4):518–539.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2001) Attachment, decay, and social network. J. Organ. Behav. 22(6):619–643.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Byrne DE (1971) The Attraction Paradigm (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Campion MA, Medsker GJ, Higgs AC (1993) Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psych. 46(4):823–847.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carton AM, Cummings JN (2012) A theory of subgroups in work teams. Acad. Management Rev. 37(3):441–470.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casciaro T, Lobo MS (2008) When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(4):655–684.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casciaro T, Lobo MS (2014) Affective primacy in intraorganizational task networks. Organ. Sci. 26(2):373–389.Link, Google Scholar
• Casciaro T, Barsade S, Edmondson A, Gibson C, Krackhardt D, Labianca G (2015) The integration of psychological and network perspectives in organizational scholarship. Organ. Sci. 26(4):1162–1176.Link, Google Scholar
• Christensen RHB (2015) ordinal: Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 2015.6-28. Software environment, The R Foundation. Available at http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal/.Google Scholar
• Cialdini RB, Kallgren CA, Reno RR (1991) A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Adv. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 24:201–234.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
• Crawford ER, Lepine JA (2013) A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Acad. Management Rev. 38(1):32–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cummings JN, Cross R (2003) Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Soc. Networks 25(3):197–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahlander L, McFarland DA (2013) Ties that last: Tie formation and persistence in research collaborations over time. Admin. Sci. Quart. 58(1):69–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Jong BA, Elfring T (2010) How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Acad. Management J. 53(3):535–549.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dutton JE, Dukerich JM, Harquail CV (1994) Organizational images and member identification. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39(2):239–263.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Earley PC, Mosakowski E (2000) Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Acad. Management J. 43(1):26–49.Crossref, 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 (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Edmondson AC, Nembhard IM (2009) Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits. J. Product Innovation Management 26(2):123–138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferrin DL, Dirks KT, Shah PP (2006) Direct and indirect effects of third-party relationships on interpersonal trust. J. Appl. Psych. 91(4):870–883.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flap H, Boxman E (2001) Getting started: The influence of social capital on the start of the occupational career. Lin N, Cook KS, Burt R, eds. Social Capital: Theory and Research (Aldine de Gruyter, New York), 159–181.Google Scholar
• Flynn FJ, Lake VK (2008) If you need help, just ask: Underestimating compliance with direct requests for help. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 95(1):128–143.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelman A, Hill J (2006) Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goodman PS, Leyden DP (1991) Familiarity and group productivity. J. Appl. Psych. 76(4):578–586.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goodman PS, Ravlin EC, Schminke M (1987) Understanding groups in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 9:121–173.Google Scholar
• Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Amer. J. Sociol. 78(6):1360–1380.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granovetter MS (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Amer. J. Sociol. 91(3):481–510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granovetter MS (1992) Problems of explanation in economic sociology. Nohria N, Eccles, RG, eds. Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA), 25–56.Google Scholar
• Guimera R, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Amaral LAN (2005) Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 308(5722):697–702.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R (1995) Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Acad. Management J. 38(1):85–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hackman JR (1987) The design of work teams. Lorsch JW, ed. Handbook of Organizational Behavior (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ), 315–342.Google Scholar
• Hallinan MT, Williams RA (1989) Interracial friendship choices in secondary schools. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 54(1):67–78.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
• Hinds PJ, Carley KM, Krackhardt D, Wholey D (2000) Choosing work group members: Balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 81(2):226–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogg MA, Sherman DK, Dierselhuis J, Maitner AT, Moffitt G (2007) Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 43(1):135–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hollingshead AB (1998) Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 74(3):659–671.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
• Humphrey SE, Aime F (2014) Team microdynamics: Toward an organizing approach to teamwork. Acad. Management Ann. 8(1):443–503.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hurlbert JS, Haines VA, Beggs JJ (2000) Core networks and tie activation: What kinds of routine networks allocate resources in nonroutine situations? Amer. Sociol. Rev. 65(4):598–618.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ibarra H (1992) Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37(3):422–447.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ibarra H (1995) Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Acad. Management J. 38(3):673–703.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ibarra H, Andrews SB (1993) Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Admin. Sci. Quart. 38(2):277–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson LR, Knoke D (2004) Skonk works here: Activating network social capital in complex collaborations. Adv. Interdisciplinary Stud. Work Teams 10:243–262.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones SL, Shah PP (2016) Diagnosing the locus of trust: A temporal perspective for trustor, trustee, and dyadic influences on perceived trustworthiness. J. Appl. Psych. 101(3):392–414.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz D, Kahn RL (1978) The Social Psychology of Organizations (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Katz N, Lazer D, Arrow H, Contractor N (2005) The network perspective on small groups. Poole JS, Hollingshead AB, eds. Theories of Small Groups: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 277–312.Google Scholar
• Kleinbaum AM, Stuart TE, Tushman ML (2013) Discretion within constraint: Homophily and structure in a formal organization. Organ. Sci. 24(5):1316–1336.Link, Google Scholar
• Kozlowski SWJ, Ilgen DR (2006) Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psych. Sci. Public Interest 7(3):77–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kozlowski SWJ, Klein KJ (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ, eds. Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), 3–90.Google Scholar
• Kozlowski SWJ, Chao GT, Grand JA, Braun MT, Kuljanin G (2013) Advancing multilevel research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organ. Res. Methods 16(4):581–615.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krackhardt D (1999) The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. Res. Sociol. Organ. 16(1):183–210.Google Scholar
• Kramer RM, Shah PP, Woerner SL (1995) Why ultimatums fail. Kramer RM, Messick DM, eds. Negotiation as a Social Process (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 285–308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• LePine JA, Piccolo RF, Jackson CL, Mathieu JE, Saul JR (2008) A meta‐analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psych. 61(2):273–307.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levin DZ, Walter J, Murnighan JK (2011) Dormant ties: The value of reconnecting. Organ. Sci. 22(4):923–939.Link, Google Scholar
• Levin DZ, Whitener EM, Cross R (2006) Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: The moderating impact of relationship length. J. Appl. Psych. 91(5):1163–1171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis K (2003) Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. J. Appl. Psych. 88(4):587–604.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis K (2004) Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Sci. 50(11):1519–1533.Link, Google Scholar
• Lin N (1999) Social networks and status attainment. Annual Rev. Soc. 25(1):467–487.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lincoln JR, Miller J (1979) Work and friendship ties in organizations: A comparative analysis of relation networks. Admin. Sci. Quart. 24(2):181–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maloney MM, Johnson SG, Zellmer-Bruhn ME (2010) Assessing group-level constructs under missing data conditions: A Monte Carlo simulation. Small Group Res. 41(3):281–307.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ (2001) A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad. Management Rev. 26(3):356–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marsden PV (1987) Core discussion networks of Americans. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 52(1):122–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martin JL, Yeung KT (2006) Persistence of close personal ties over a 12-year period. Soc. Networks 28(4):331–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mathieu J, Maynard MT, Rapp T, Gilson L (2008) Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. J. Management 34(3):410–476.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDonald, Westphal (2003) Getting by with the advice of their friends: CEOs' advice networks and firms' strategic responses to poor performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(1):1–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGrath JE (1991) Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Res. 22(2):147–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGrath RG, MacMillan IC, Venkataraman S (1995) Defining and developing competence: A strategic process paradigm. Strategic Management J. 16(4):251–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McPherson ML, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Rev. Soc. 27(1):415–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mehra A, Kilduff M, Brass B (1998) At the margins: A distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups. Acad. Management J. 41(4):441–452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mell JN, Van Knippenberg D, Van Ginkel WP (2014) The catalyst effect: The impact of transactive memory system structure on team performance. Acad. Management J. 57(4):1154–1173.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mollica KA, Gray B, Treviño LK (2003) Racial homophily and its persistence in newcomers’ social networks. Organ. Sci. 14(2):123–136.Link, Google Scholar
• Moran P (2005) Structural vs. relational embeddedness: Social capital and managerial performance. Strategic Management J. 26(12):1129–1151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moreland RL (2010) Are dyads really groups? Small Group Res. 41(2):251–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moreland RL, McMinn JG (1999) Gone but not forgotten: Loyalty and betrayal among ex-members of small groups. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 25(12):1476–1486.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad. Management Rev. 23(2):242–266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nebus J (2006) Building collegial information networks: A theory of advice network generation. Acad. Management Rev. 31(3):615–637.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newcomb TM, Koenig KE, Flancks R, Warwick DP (1967) Persistence and Change: Bennington College and Its Students After Twenty-five Years (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Newman DA (2009) Missing data techniques and low response rates: The role of systematic nonresponse parameters. Lance CE, Vandenberg RJ, eds. Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends: Doctrine, Verity and Fable in the Organizational and Social Sciences (Routledge, New York), 7–36.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
• Pearce JL, Gregersen HB (1991) Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. J. Appl. Psych. 76(6):838–844.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Popielarz PA, McPherson JM (1995) On the edge or in between: Niche position, niche overlap, and the duration of voluntary association memberships. Amer. J. Sociol. 101(3):698–720.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pratt MG (1998) Central questions in organizational identification. Whetten DA, Godfrey PC, eds. Identity in Organizations (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 171–207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Putnam RD (1993) The prosperous community. Amer. Prospect 4(13):35–42.Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team (2009) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna).Google Scholar
• Reagans R (2005) Preferences, identity, and competition: Predicting tie strength from demographic data. Management Sci. 51(9):1374–1383.Link, Google Scholar
• Reagans R (2011) Close encounters: Analyzing how social similarity and propinquity contribute to strong network connections. Organ. Sci. 22(4):835–849.Link, Google Scholar
• Reagans R, McEvily B (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(2):240–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reagans R, Zuckerman E, McEvily B (2004) How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 49(1):101–133.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
• Shah PP (1998) Who are employees’ social referents? Using a network perspective to determine referent others. Acad. Management J. 41(3):249–268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shah PP (2000) Network destruction: The structural implications of downsizing. Acad. Management J. 43(1):101–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shah PP, Dirks KT, Chervany N (2006) The multiple pathways of high performing groups: The interaction of social networks and group processes. J. Organ. Behav. 27(3):299–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snijders TAB, Kenny DA (1999) The social relations model for family data: A multilevel approach. Personal Relationships 6(4):471–486.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stogdill RM (1959) Individual Behavior and Group Achievement: A Theory (Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom).Google Scholar
• Sundstrom E, DeMeuse KP, Futrell D (1990) Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. Amer. Psychologist 45(2):120–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tajfel H (1978) Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. Tajfel H, ed. Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Academic Press, London), 61–76.Google Scholar
• Tajfel H, Turner JC (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Worchel S, Austin W, eds. Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Nelson-Hall, Chicago), 7–24.Google Scholar
• Talaulicar T, Grundei J, Werder AV (2005) Strategic decision making in start-ups: The effect of top management team organization and processes on speed and comprehensiveness. J. Bus. Venturing 20(4):519–541.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson LL (2004) Making the Team (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).Google Scholar
• Tsui AS, O’Reilly CA III (1989) Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Acad. Management J. 32(2):402–423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tuma NB, Hallinan MT (1979) The effects of sex, race, and achievement on schoolchildren’s friendships. Soc. Forces 57(4):1265–1285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B (1996) The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 61(4):674–698.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B, Spiro J (2005) Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. Amer. J. Sociol. 111(2):447–504.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Duijn MAJ (2013) Multilevel modeling of social network and relational data. Scott MA, Simonoff JS, Marx BD, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Multilevel Modeling (Sage, London), 599–618.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Knippenberg D, Schippers MC (2007) Work group diversity. Annual Rev. Psych. 58(1):515–541.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Varella P, Javidan M, Waldman DA (2012) A model of instrumental networks: The roles of socialized charismatic leadership and group behavior. Organ. Sci. 23(2):582–595.Link, Google Scholar
• Wageman R (1995) Interdependence and group effectiveness. Admin. Sci. Quart. 40(1):145–180.Crossref, 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
• Walter J, Levin DZ, Murnigham JK (2015) Reconnection choices: Selecting the most valuable (vs. most preferred) dormant ties. Organ. Sci. 26(5):1447–1465.Link, Google Scholar
• Wegner DM (1987) Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. Mullen B, Goethals GR, eds. Theories of Group Behavior (Springer, New York), 185–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westveld AH, Hoff PD (2011) A mixed effects model for longitudinal relational and network data, with applications to international trade and conflict. Ann. Appl. Statist. 5(2A):843–872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams KY, O’Reilly CA (1998) Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Res. Organ. Behav. 20:77–140.Google Scholar
• Zaheer A, Soda G (2009) Network evolution: The origins of structural holes. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(1):1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zellmer-Bruhn ME, Maloney MM, Bhappu AD, Salvador RB (2008) When and how do differences matter? An exploration of perceived similarity in teams. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 107(1):41–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zenger TR, Lawrence BS (1989) Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Acad. Management J. 32(2):353–376.Crossref, Google Scholar