Team Performance: Nature and Antecedents of Nonnormal Distributions

References

• Aggarwal I, Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Malone TW (2019) The impact of cognitive style diversity on implicit learning in teams. Frontiers Psych. 10(112):1–11.Google Scholar
• Aguinis H, Bradley KJ (2015) The secret sauce for organizational success. Organ. Dynamics 44(3):161–168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aguinis H, O’Boyle E Jr (2014) Star performers in twenty‐first century organizations. Personality Psych. 67(2):313–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aguinis H, Gottfredson RK, Joo H (2013) Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organ. Res. Methods 16(2):270–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aguinis H, Ji YH, Joo H (2018) Gender productivity gap among star performers in STEM and other scientific fields. J. Appl. Psych. 103(12):1283–1306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aguinis H, Ramani RS, Alabduljader N, Bailey JR, Lee J (2019) A pluralist conceptualization of scholarly impact in management education: Students as stakeholders. Acad. Management Learn. Edu. 18(1):11–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahearne M, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM, Mathieu JE, Lam SK (2010) The role of consensus in sales team performance. J. Marketing Res. 47(3):458–469.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amitrano D (2012) Variability in the power-law distributions of rupture events. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 205(1):199–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andriani P, McKelvey B (2009) Perspective—From Gaussian to Paretian thinking: Causes and implications of power laws in organizations. Organ. Sci. 20(6):1053–1071.Link, Google Scholar
• Argote L, Epple D (1990) Learning curves in manufacturing. Science 247(4945):920–924.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argote L, Ingram P (2000) Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 82(1):150–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baiden BK, Price AD, Dainty AR (2006) The extent of team integration within construction projects. Internat. J. Project Management 24(1):13–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banerjee A, Yakovenko VM (2010) Universal patterns of inequality. New J. Phys. 12(7):075032.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banker RD, Field JM, Schroeder RG, Sintia KK (1996) Impact of work teams on manufacturing performance: A longitudinal field study. Acad. Management J. 39(4):867–890.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beal DJ, Cohen RR, Burke MJ, McLendon CL (2003) Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. J. Appl. Psych. 88(6):989–1004.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker TE, Robertson MM, Vandenberg RJ (2019) Nonlinear transformations in organizational research: Possible problems and potential solutions. Organ. Res. Methods 22(4):831–866.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell BS, Kozlowski SWJ, Blawath S (2012) Team learning: A review and integration. Kozlowski SWJ, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology, vol. 2 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 859–909.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell ST (2007) Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psych. 92(3):595–615.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyd BK, Finkelstein S, Gove S (2005) How advanced is the strategy paradigm? The role of particularism and universalism in shaping research outcomes. Strategic Management J. 26(9):841–854.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bresman H (2010) External learning activities and team performance: A multimethod field study. Organ. Sci. 21(1):81–96.Link, Google Scholar
• Busse C, Kach AP, Wagner SM (2017) Boundary conditions: What they are, how to explore them, why we need them, and when to consider them. Organ. Res. Methods 20(4):574–609.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buzsáki G, Mizuseki K (2014) The log-dynamic brain: How skewed distributions affect network operations. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 15(4):264–278.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chang A, Bordia P, Duck J (2003) Punctuated equilibrium and linear progression: Toward a new understanding of group development. Acad. Management J. 46(1):106–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi M, Lee CY (2020) Power-law distributions of corporate innovative output: Evidence from US patent data. Scientometrics 122:519–554.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clauset A, Shalizi CR, Newman ME (2009) Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev. 51(4):661–703.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
• Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ).Google Scholar
• Connelly BL, Crook TR, Combs JG, Ketchen DJ Jr, Aguinis H (2018) Competence-and integrity-based trust in interorganizational relationships: Which matters more? J. Management 44(3):919–945.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Day DV, Gordon S, Fink C (2012) The sporting life: Exploring organizations through the lens of sport. Acad. Management Ann. 6(1):397–433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeShon RP, Kozlowski SW, Schmidt AM, Milner KR, Wiechmann D (2004) A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. J. Appl. Psych. 89(6):1035–1056.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Devine DJ, Philips JL (2001) Do smarter teams do better: A meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team performance. Small Group Res. 32(5):507–532.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de la Torre Hernández JM, Edelman ER (2017) From nonclinical research to clinical trials and patient registries: Challenges and opportunities in biomedical research. Rev. Esp. Cardiology (English Ed.) 70(12):1121–1133.Google Scholar
• De Vries TA, Hollenbeck JR, Davison RB, Walter F, Van Der Vegt GS (2016) Managing coordination in multiteam systems: Integrating micro and macro perspectives. Acad. Management J. 59(5):1823–1844.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Winter JC, Gosling SD, Potter J (2016) Comparing the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients across distributions and sample sizes: A tutorial using simulations and empirical data. Psych. Methods 21(3):273–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dierdorff EC, Fisher DM, Rubin RS (2019) The power of percipience: Consequences of self-awareness in teams on team-level functioning and performance. J. Management 45(7):2891–2919.Google Scholar
• Driskell T, Salas E, Driskell JE (2018) Teams in extreme environments: Alterations in team development and teamwork. Human Resources Management Rev. 28(4):434–449.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edmondson AC, Bohmer RM, Pisano GP (2001) Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(4):685–716.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edmondson AC, Dillon JR, Roloff KS (2007) Three perspectives on team learning: Outcome improvement, task mastery, and group process. Acad. Management Ann. 1(1):269–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foster MK, Abbey A, Callow MA, Zu X, Wilbon AD (2015) Rethinking virtuality and its impact on teams. Small Group Res. 46(3):267–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fries SD (1992) NASA Engineers and the Age of Apollo (National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientific and Technical Information Program, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Garbers Y, Konradt U (2014) The effect of financial incentives on performance: A quantitative review of individual and team‐based financial incentives. J. Occupational Organ. Psych. 87(1):102–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gersick CJ (1988) Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Acad. Management J. 31(1):9–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibbert M, Nair LB, Weiss M, Hoegl M (2021) Using outliers for theory building. Organ. Res. Methods 24(1):172–181.Crossref, 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
• 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.Crossref, 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
• Gross J, Ryan JC (2015) Landscapes of research: Perceptions of open access (OA) publishing in the arts and humanities. Publications 2015(3):65–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gula B, Vaci N, Alexandrowicz RW, Bilalic M (2021) Never too much: The benefit of talent to team performance in the NBA: Comment on Swaab et al. (2014). Psych. Sci. 32(2):301–304.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hanel R, Corominas-Murtra B, Liu B, Thurner S (2017) Fitting power-laws in empirical data with estimators that work for all exponents. PLoS One 12(2):e0170920.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hill AD, Aime F, Ridge JW (2017) The performance implications of resource and pay dispersion: The case of Major League Baseball. Strategic Management J. 38(9):1935–1947.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hollenbeck JR, Beersma B, Schouten ME (2012) Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Acad. Management Rev. 37(1):82–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hollingshead AB (1998) Group and individual training: The impact of practice on performance. Small Group Res. 29(2):254–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson M, Jundt D (2005) Teams in organizations. Annu. Rev. Psych. 56(1):517–543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones AM, Lomas J, Moore PT, Rice N (2016) A quasi‐Monte‐Carlo comparison of parametric and semiparametric regression methods for heavy‐tailed and non‐normal data: An application to healthcare costs. J. Royal Statist. Soc. Ser. A 179(4):951–974.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joo H, Aguinis H, Bradley KJ (2017) Not all non-normal distributions are created equal: Improved theoretical and measurement precision. J. Appl. Psych. 102(7):1022–1053.Crossref, 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
• Katz R (1982) The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 27(1):81–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim JS, Yum BJ (2008) Selection between Weibull and lognormal distributions: A comparative simulation study. Comput. Statist. Data Anal. 53(2):477–485.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kirkman BL, Mathieu JE, Cordery JL, Rosen B, Kukenberger M (2011) Managing a new collaborative entity in business organizations: Understanding organizational communities of practice effectiveness. J. Appl. Psych. 96(6):1234–1245.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knapp R (2010) Collective (team) learning process models: A conceptual review. Human Resources Dev. Rev. 9(3):285–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kruschke JK, Aguinis H, Joo H (2012) The time has come: Bayesian methods for data analysis in the organizational sciences. Organ. Res. Methods 15(4):722–752.Crossref, Google Scholar
• LeBreton JM, Senter JL (2008) Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organ. Res. Methods 11(4):815–852.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee SM, Koopman J, Hollenbeck JR, Wang LC, Lanaj K (2015) The team descriptive index (TDI): A multidimensional scaling approach for team description. Acad. Managment Discovery 1(1):91–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Le Roy F, Fernandez AS (2015) Managing coopetitive tensions at the working‐group level: The rise of the coopetitive project team. British J. Management 26(4):671–688.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li M, Zhao W (2012) Visiting power laws in cyber-physical networking systems. Math. Problems Engrg. 2012:302786.Google Scholar
• Lindsley DH, Brass DJ, Thomas JB (1995) Efficacy-performing spirals: A multilevel perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 20(3):645–678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luan K, Rico R, Xie XY, Zhang Q (2016) Collective team identification and external learning. Small Group Res. 47(4):384–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luciano MM, DeChurch LA, Mathieu JE (2018) Multiteam systems: A structural framework and meso-theory of system functioning. J. Management 44(3):1065–1096.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mathieu JE, Gilson LL, Ruddy TM (2006) Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. J. Appl. Psych. 91(1):97–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mathieu JE, Gallagher PT, Domingo MA, Klock EA (2019) Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 6:17–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mathieu JE, Tannenbaum SI, Donsbach JS, Alliger GM (2014) A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. J. Management 40(1):130–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J. Appl. Psych. 85(2):273–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maynard MT, Mathieu JE, Rapp TL, Gilson LL (2012) Something (s) old and something (s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. J. Organ. Behav. 33(3):342–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maynard MT, Mathieu JE, Gilson LL, Sanchez D, Dean MD (2019) Do I really know you and does it matter? Unpacking the relationship between familiarity and information elaboration in global virtual teams. Group Organ. Management 44(1):3–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKelvey B, Andriani P (2005) Why Gaussian statistics are mostly wrong for strategic organization. Strategic Organ. 3(2):219–228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mitzenmacher M (2004) A brief history of generative models for power law and lognormal distributions. Internet Math. 1(2):226–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morgeson FP, Hofmann DA (1999) The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Acad. Management Rev. 24(2):249–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Boyle E Jr, Aguinis H (2012) The best and the rest: Revisiting the norm of normality of individual performance. Personality Psych. 65(1):79–119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pareto V (1897) The new theories of economics. J. Political Econom. 5(4):485–502.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Park G, Spitzmuller M, DeShon RP (2013) Advancing our understanding of team motivation: Integrating conceptual approaches and content areas. J. Management 39(5):1339–1379.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J, Leong A, Strehl K (1977) Paradigm development and particularism: Journal publication in three scientific disciplines. Soc. Forces 55(4):938–951.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pisano GP, Bohmer RM, Edmondson AC (2001) Organizational differences in rates of learning: Evidence from the adoption of minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Management Sci. 47(6):752–768.Link, Google Scholar
• Rapp TL, Mathieu JE (2019) Team and individual influences on members’ identification and performance per membership in multiple team membership arrangements. J. Appl. Psych. 104(3):303–320.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rapp TL, Gilson LL, Mathieu JE, Ruddy T (2016) Leading empowered teams: An examination of the role of external team leaders and team coaches. Leadership Quart. 27(1):109–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reagans R, Argote L, Brooks D (2005) Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Sci. 51(6):869–881.Link, Google Scholar
• Rego A, Owens B, Yam KC, Bluhm D, Cunha MPE, Silard A, Goncalves L, et al. (2019) Leader humility and team performance: Exploring the mediating mechanisms of team PsyCap and task allocation effectiveness. J. Management 45(3):1009–1033.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ren Y, Argote L (2011) Transactive memory systems 1985–2010: An integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. Acad. Management Ann. 5(1):189–229.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Riedl C, Kim YJ, Gupta P, Malone TW, Woolley AW (2021) Quantifying collective intelligence in human groups. Proc. National Acad. Sci. USA 118(21):1–5.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romme AGL (2004) Unanimity rule and organizational decision making: A simulation model. Organ. Sci. 15(6):704–718.Link, Google Scholar
• Rose GM, Shoham A (2004) Interorganizaitojnal task and emotional conflict with international channels of distribution. J. Bus. Res. 57(9):942–950.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salas E, DiazGranados D, Klein C, Burke CS, Stagl KC, Goodwin GF, Halpin SM (2008) Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors 50(6):903–933.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schachter S, Ellertson N, McBride D, Gregory D (1951) An experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations 4(3):229–238.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonton DK (2003) Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psych. Bull. 129(4):475–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Somech A, Drach-Zahavy A (2013) Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation. J. Management 39(3):684–708.Google Scholar
• Sornette D (2006) Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences: Chaos, Fractals, Selforganization and Disorder: Concepts and Tools (Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin).Google Scholar
• Steiner ID (1972) Group Processes and Productivity (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Sundaresan S, Zhang Z (2012) Parallel teams for knowledge creation: Role of collaboration and incentives. Decision Support Systems 54(1):109–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swaab RI, Schaerer M, Anicich EM, Ronay R, Galinsky AD (2014) The too-much-talent effect: Team interdependence determines when more talent is too much or not enough. Psych. Sci. 25(8):1581–1591.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trevor CO, Reilly G, Gerhart B (2012) Reconsidering pay dispersion’s effect on the performance of interdependent work: Reconciling sorting and pay inequality. Acad. Management J. 55(3):585–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Bunderen L, Greer LL, Van Knippenberg D (2018) When interteam conflict spirals into intrateam power struggles: The pivotal role of team power structures. Acad. Management J. 61(3):1100–1130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vancouver JB, Li X, Weinhardt JM, Steel P, Purl JD (2016) Using a computational model to understand possible sources of skews in distributions of job performance. Personality Psych. 69(4):931–974.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vashdi DR, Bamberger PA, Erez M (2013) Can surgical teams ever learn? The role of coordination, complexity, and transitivity in action team learning. Acad. Management J. 56(4):945–971.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Virkar Y, Clauset A (2014) Power-law distributions in binned empirical data. Ann. Appl. Statist. 8(1):89–119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Volmer J, Sonnentag S (2011) The role of star performers in software design teams. J. Management Psych. 26(3):219–234.Google Scholar
• Winkler RL (1967) The assessment of prior distributions in Bayesian analysis. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 62(319):776–800.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330(6004):686–688.Crossref, Google Scholar