Meso-Foundations of Interorganizational Relationships: How Team Power Structures Shape Partner Novelty

Citations

• Ai C, Norton EC (2003) Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Econom. Lett. 80(1):123–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aldrich H, Herker D (1977) Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Acad. Management Rev. 2(2):217–230.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allen TJ (1977) Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Information within the R&D Organization (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Amabile TM, Fisher CM, Pillemer J (2014) IDEO’s culture of helping. Harvard Bus. Rev. 92(1):54–61.Google Scholar
• Ancona DG, Bresman H (2007) X-Teams: How to Build Teams That Lead, Innovate, and Succeed (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA).Google Scholar
• Ancona D, Caldwell D (2009) Compose teams to assure successful boundary activity. Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior (John Wiley & Sons, Sussex, UK), 295–308.Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Galinsky AD (2006) Power, optimism, and risk-taking. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 36(4):511–536.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Angrist J, Pischke JS (2009) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion, 1st ed. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barnard CI (1938) The Functions of the Executive (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Baum JAC, Rowley TJ, Shipilov AV, Chuang YT (2005) Dancing with strangers: Aspiration performance and the search for underwriting syndicate partners. Admin. Sci. Quart. 50(4):536–575.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beckman CM, Haunschild PR, Phillips DJ (2004) Friends or Strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organ. Sci. 15(3):259–275.Link, Google Scholar
• Blau PM (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Bonacich P (1987) Power and centrality: A family of measures. Amer. J. Sociol. 92(5):1170–1182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bresman H, Zellmer-Bruhn M (2013) The structural context of team learning: Effects of organizational and team structure on internal and external learning. Organ. Sci. 24(4):1120–1139.Link, Google Scholar
• Briscoe F, Tsai W (2011) Overcoming relational inertia: How organizational members respond to acquisition events in a law firm. Admin. Sci. Q. 56(3):408–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bunderson JS, Boumgarden P (2010) Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organ. Sci. 21(3):609–624.Link, Google Scholar
• Bunderson JS, Reagans RE (2011) Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organ. Sci. 22(5):1182–1194.Link, Google Scholar
• Bunderson JS, van der Vegt GS, Cantimur Y, Rink F (2016) Different views of hierarchy and why they matter: Hierarchy as inequality or as cascading influence. Acad. Management J. 59(4):1265–1289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1983) Corporate Profits and Cooptation: Networks of Market Constraints and Directorate Ties in the American Economy (Academic Press Inc., New York).Google Scholar
• Burns T, Stalker GM (1961) The Management of Innovation. Revised ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Burton RM, Eriksen B, Håkonsson DD, Snow CC (2006) Organization Design: The Evolving State-of-the-Art (Springer Science & Business Media).Google Scholar
• Cameron AC, Gelbach JB, Miller DL (2011) Robust inference with multiway clustering. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 29(2):238–249.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell DT (1960) Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psych. Rev. 67(6):380–400.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Canales R (2014) Weaving straw into gold: Managing organizational tensions between standardization and flexibility in microfinance. Organ. Sci. 25(1):90–117.Link, Google Scholar
• Child J, McGrath RG (2001) Organizations Unfettered: Organizational form in an information-intensive economy. Acad. Management J. 44(6):1135–1148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook SJ, Hays JC, Franzese RJ (2018) Fixed effects in rare events data: A penalized maximum likelihood solution. Political Science Res. Methods 1–14.Google Scholar
• Crawford E, LePine J (2014) A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Acad. Management Rev. 38(1):32–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Csardi G, Nepusz T (2006) The igraph software package for complex network research. Internat. J. Complex Systems 1695(5):1–9.Google Scholar
• Das TK, Teng BS (1998) Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Acad. Management Rev. 23(3):491–512.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyer JH, Hatch NW (2006) Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: Creating advantage through network relationships. Strategic Management. J. 27(8):701–719.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edmondson AC, Dillon JR, Roloff KS (2007) Three perspectives on team learning. Acad. Management Ann. 1(1):269–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Emerson RM (1962) Power-dependence relations. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 27(1):31–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• French J, Raven B (1959) The Bases of Social Power. Studies in Social Power (Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI), 150–167.Google Scholar
• Friedkin NE, Jia P, Bullo F (2016) A theory of the evolution of social power: Natural trajectories of interpersonal influence systems along issue sequences. Sociol. Sci. 3(20):444–472.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galbraith JR (2009) Designing Matrix Organizations that Actually Work: How IBM, Procter & Gamble and Others Design for Success, 1st ed. (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA).Google Scholar
• Gittell JH, Seidner R, Wimbush J (2010) Relational model of how high-performance work systems work. Organ. Sci. 21(2):490–506.Link, Google Scholar
• Greene W (2010) Testing hypotheses about interaction terms in nonlinear models. Econom. Lett. 107(2):291–296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenwood R, Empson L (2003) The professional partnership: Relic or exemplary form of governance? Organ. Stud. 24(6):909–933.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenwood R, Miller D (2010) Tackling design anew: Getting back to the heart of organizational theory. Acad. Management Perspect. 24(4):78–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greer LL, Caruso HM, Jehn KA (2011) The bigger they are, the harder they fall: Linking team power, team conflict, and performance. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 116(1):116–128.Google Scholar
• Greer LL (2014) Power in teams: Effects of team power structures on team conflict and team outcomes. Ayoko OB, Ashkanasy NM, Jehn KA, eds. Handbook of Conflict Management Research (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK), 93–108.Google Scholar
• Greer LL, de Jong BA, Schouten ME, Dannals JE (2018) Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration. J. Appl. Psych. 103(6):591–613.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Groysberg B, Polzer JT, Elfenbein HA (2011) Too many cooks spoil the broth: How high-status individuals decrease group effectiveness. Organ. Sci. 22(3):722–737.Link, 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
• 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.Google Scholar
• Hays NA, Bendersky C (2015) Not all inequality is created equal: Effects of status vs. power hierarchies on competition for upward mobility. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 108(6):867–882.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hernandez E, Kleinbaum AM, Shipilov AV (2019) A Network is a network? (Non)-generalizability across levels of analysis in network research. Working paper, The Wharton School, Philadelphia.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
• Joshi A, Pandey N, Han G(H) (2009) Bracketing team boundary spanning: An examination of task-based, team-level, and contextual antecedents. J. Organ. Behav. 30(6):731–759.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York).Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291.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 Perform. 23(2):139–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keltner D, Gruenfeld DH, Anderson C (2003) Power, approach, and inhibition. Psych. Rev. 110(2):265–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• King G, Zeng L (2001) Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Anal. 9(2):137–163.Google Scholar
• Kim TY, Oh H, Swaminathan A (2006) Framing interorganizational network change: A network inertia perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 31(3):704–720.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kneeland MK (2019) Agency and the dynamics of network churn. Working paper, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
• Kogut B (1988) Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management J. 9(4):319–332.Crossref, 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
• Krackhardt D (1992) The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. Nohria N, Eccles RG, eds. Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action (Harvard Business School Press, Boston), 216–239.Google Scholar
• Lammers J, Galinsky AD, Gordijn EH, Otten S (2008) Illegitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach. Psych. Sci. 19(6):558–564.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 12(1):1–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee MY, Edmondson AC (2017) Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing. Res. Organ. Behav. 37:35–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA, Workiewicz M (2018) When two bosses are better than one: Nearly decomposable systems and organizational adaptation. Organ. Sci. 29(2):207–224.Link, Google Scholar
• Magee JC, Galinsky AD (2008) Social hierarchy: The self‐reinforcing nature of power and status. Acad. Management Ann. 2(1):351–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maister D (1993) Managing the Professional Service Firm (Free Press, Toronto, New York).Google Scholar
• Maner JK, Gailliot MT, Butz DA, Peruche BM (2007) Power, risk, and the status quo: Does power promote riskier or more conservative decision making? Perspect. Soc. Psych. Bull. 33(4):451–462.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1):71–87.Link, Google Scholar
• Marrone JA (2010) Team boundary spanning: A multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. J. Management 36(4):911–940.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
• McEvily B, Soda G, Tortoriello M (2014) More formally: Rediscovering the missing link between formal organization and informal social structure. Acad. Management Ann. 8(1):299–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mize TD (2019) Best practices for estimating, interpreting, and presenting nonlinear interaction effects. Sociol. Sci. 6:81–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mueller J, Cronin M (2009) How relational processes support team creativity. Creativity in Groups (Research on Managing Groups and Teams) (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK), 291–310.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J (1981) Power in Organizations (Financial Times Prentice Hall, Marshfield, MA).Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J (2013) You’re still the same: Why theories of power hold over time and across contexts. Acad. Management Perspect. 27(4):269–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (1994) Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39(3):458–483.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (2001) Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. Amer. J. Sociol. 107(1):33–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41(1):116–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puranam P, Håkonsson DD (2015) Valve’s way. J. Organ. Design 4(2):2–4.Crossref, Google Scholar
• R Core Team (2019) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, 3.6.1. 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
• Rogan M, Mors ML (2014) A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Organ. Sci. 25(6):1860–1877.Link, Google Scholar
• Roggema R (2014) The design charrette. Roggema R, ed. The Design Charrette: Ways to Envision Sustainable Futures (Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands), 15–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sah RK, Stiglitz JE (1988) Committees, hierarchies and polyarchies. Econom. J. 98(391):451–470.Google Scholar
• Salancik GR, Pfeffer J (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (Harper and Row, New York).Google Scholar
• Schilke O, Reimann M, Cook KS (2015) Power decreases trust in social exchange. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112(42):12950–12955.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scott WR, Davis GF (2006) Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open Systems Perspectives, 1st ed. (Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ).Google Scholar
• Simonsohn U (2017) Interactions in logit regressions: Why positive may mean negative. Data Colada (February 23), http://datacolada.org/57.Google Scholar
• Simonton DK (1988) Scientific Genius: A Psychology of Science (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Singh J, Hansen MT, Podolny JM (2010) The world is not small for everyone: Inequity in searching for knowledge in organizations. Management Sci. 56(9):1415–1438.Link, Google Scholar
• Smith A (1776) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (J. M. Dent & Sons, London).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith PK, Hofmann W (2016) Power in everyday life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113(36):10043–10048.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sorenson O, Rogan M (2014) (When) do organizations have social capital? Annual Rev. Sociol. 40(1):261–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sydow J, Lindkvist L, DeFillippi R (2004) Project-based organizations, embeddedness and repositories of knowledge. Organ. Stud. 25(9):1475–1489.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tetlock PE (2002) Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psych. Rev. 109(3):451–471.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory, 1st ed. (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ).Google Scholar
• Tortoriello M, Krackhardt D (2010) Activating cross-boundary knowledge: The role of simmelian ties in the generation of innovations. Acad. Management J. 53(1):167–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turner SF, Bettis RA, Burton RM (2002) Exploring depth vs. breadth in knowledge management strategies. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 8(1):49–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, Scanlan TJ (1981) Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Acad. Management J. 24(2):289–305.Google Scholar
• Uzzi B (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(1):35–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Valentine MA, Edmondson AC (2015) Team scaffolds: How mesolevel structures enable role-based coordination in temporary groups. Organ. Sci. 26(2):405–422.Link, Google Scholar
• Weber M (1947) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).Google Scholar
• Yan A, Louis MR (1999) The migration of organizational functions to the work unit level: Buffering, spanning, and bringing up boundaries. Human Relations 52(1):25–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Young-Hyman T (2017) Cooperating without co-laboring: How formal organizational power moderates cross-functional interaction in project teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 62(1):179–214.Crossref, Google Scholar