Unlocking the Inventive Potential of Knowledge Distance in Teams: How Intrateam Network Configurations Provide a Key

References

• Allison P (2012) When can you safely ignore multicollinearity. Statistical Horizons (September 10), https://statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearity/.Google Scholar
• Amabile TM (1996) Creativity in Context: Update to The Social Psychology of Creativity (Routledge, New York).Google Scholar
• Argote L, Aven BL, Kush J (2018) The effects of communication networks and turnover on transactive memory and group performance. Organ. Sci. 29(2):191–206.Link, Google Scholar
• Avenel E, Favier AV, Ma S, Magematin V, Rieu C (2007) Diversification and Hybridization in firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies. Res. Policy 36(6):864–870.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
• Balkundi P, Barsness Z, Michael JH (2009) Unlocking the influence of leadership network structures on team conflict and viability. Small Group Res. 40(3):301–322.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bavelas A (1950) Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. J. Acoustical Soc. Amer. 22(6):725–730.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ben-Menahem SM, Von Krogh G, Erden Z, Schneider A (2016) Coordinating knowledge creation in multidisciplinary teams: Evidence from early-stage drug discovery. Acad. Management J. 59(4):1308–1338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bercovitz J, Feldman M (2011) The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography. Res. Policy 40(1):81–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernstein ES, Shore JC, Jang AJ (2022) Network centralization and collective adaptability to a shifting environment. Organ. Sci., ePub ahead of print May 31, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1584.Link, Google Scholar
• Bezrukova K, Jehn KA, Zanutto EL, Thatcher SM (2009) Do workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A moderated model of faultlines, team identification, and group performance. Organ. Sci. 20(1):35–50.Link, Google Scholar
• Boix Mansilla V, Lamont M, Sato K (2016) Shared cognitive–emotional–interactional platforms: Markers and conditions for successful interdisciplinary collaborations. Sci. Tech. Human Values 41(4):571–612.Crossref, 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, Everett MG, Johnson JC (2013) Analyzing Social Networks (Sage Publications, London).Google Scholar
• Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2010) Microeconometrics Using Stata (Stata Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Carnabuci G, Operti E (2013) Where do firms’ recombinant capabilities come from? Intraorganizational networks, knowledge, and firms’ ability to innovate through technological recombination. Strategic Management J. 34(13):1591–1613.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
• Chung Y, Jackson SE (2013) The internal and external networks of knowledge-intensive teams: The role of task routineness. J. Management 39(2):442–468.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1):128–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Amer. J. Sociol. 94:S95–S120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cramton CD (2001) The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ. Sci. 12(3):346–371.Link, 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
• Cronin MA, Weingart LR (2007) Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Acad. Management Rev. 32(3):761–773.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cunningham JL, Gino F, Cable DM, Staats BR (2021) Seeing oneself as a valued contributor: Social worth affirmation improves team information sharing. Acad. Management J. 64(6):1816–1841.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahlin KB, Weingart LR, Hinds PJ (2005) Team diversity and information use. Acad. Management J. 48(6):1107–1123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dane E (2010) Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: A cognitive entrenchment perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 35(4):579–603.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Danneels E (2008) Organizational antecedents of second‐order competences. Strategic Management J. 29(5):519–543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Darby MR, Zucker LG (2005) Socio-economic impact of nanoscale science: Initial results and Nanobank. NBER Working Paper No. 11181, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.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 (2002) The local and variegated nature of learning in organization: A group-level perspective. Organ. Sci. 13(2):128–146.Link, Google Scholar
• Edmondson AC (2012) Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Ellis APJ (2006) System breakdown: The role of mental models and transactive memory in the relationship between acute stress and team performance. Acad. Management J. 49(3):576–589.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Espinosa JA, Slaughter SA, Kraut RE, Herbsleb JD (2007) Familiarity, complexity, and team performance in geographically distributed software development. Organ. Sci. 18(4):613–630.Link, Google Scholar
• Fang C, Lee J, Schilling MA (2010) Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 21(3):625–642.Link, Google Scholar
• Fiore SM (2008) Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: How the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Res. 39(3):251–277.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske ST (2018) Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 27(2):67–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleming L (2001) Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Sci. 47(1):117–132.Link, Google Scholar
• Fleming L (2007) Breakthroughs and the “long tail” of innovation. MIT Sloan Management Rev. 49(1):69–74.Google Scholar
• Fleming L, Sorenson O (2004) Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management J. 25(8‐9):909–928.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleming L, Mingo S, Chen D (2007) Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(3):443–475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman LC (1979) Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Soc. Networks 1:215–239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Funk R (2014) Making the most of where you are: Geography, networks, and innovation in organizations. Acad. Management J. 57(1):193–222.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Funk RJ, Owen-Smith J (2016) A dynamic network measure of technological change. Management Sci. 63(3):791–817.Link, Google Scholar
• Gardner HK, Gino F, Staats BR (2012) Dynamically integrating knowledge in teams: Transforming resources into performance. Acad. Management J. 55(4):998–1022.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibson C, Vermeulen F (2003) A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(2):202–239.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
• Gittelman M (2008) A note on the value of patents as indicators of innovation: Implications for management research. Acad. Management Perspect. 22(3):21–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH (2000) A note on the bias in the Herfindahl based on count data. Unpublished Note.Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (2005) Market value and patent citations. RAND J. Econom. 36(1):16–38.Google Scholar
• Harrison DA, Klein KJ (2007) What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 32(4):1199–1228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harvey S (2014) Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Acad. Management Rev. 39(3):324–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hilbe J (2011) Negative Binomial Regression (Cambridge University Press, Boston).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoever IJ, van Knippenberg D, van Ginkel WP, Barkema HG (2012) Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. J. Appl. Psych. 97(5):982–996.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hollenbeck JR, Ellis AP, Humphrey S, Garza AS, Ilgen D (2011) Asymmetry in structural adaptation: The differential impact of centralizing vs. decentralizing team decision-making structures. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 114(1):64–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Homan AC, Hollenbeck JR, Humphrey SE, Knippenberg DV, Ilgen DR, Van Kleef GA (2008) Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Acad. Management J. 51(6):1204–1222.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang S, Cummings JN (2011) When critical knowledge is most critical: Centralization in knowledge-intensive teams. Small Group Res. 42(6):669–699.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
• Jaffe AB (1986) Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76(5):984–1001.Google Scholar
• Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2002) Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones EE, Kelly JR (2013) The psychological costs of knowledge specialization in groups: Unique expertise leaves you out of the loop. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 121(2):174–182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joshi A, Knight AP (2015) Who defers to whom and why? Dual pathways linking demographic differences and dyadic deference to team effectiveness. Acad. Management J. 58(1):59–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S, Vakili K (2015) The double‐edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation. Strategic Management J. 36(10):1435–1457.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S, Milde J, Schwartz CR (2017) Symbiont practices in boundary spanning: Bridging the cognitive and political divides in interdisciplinary research. Acad. Management J. 60(4):1387–1414.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein JT (2013) Communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Wulfhorst JD, eds. Enhancing Communication & Collaboration in Crossdisciplinary Research (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 11–30.Google Scholar
• Klimoski R, Mohammed S (1994) Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? J. Management 20(2):403–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogan L, Papanikolaou D, Seru A, Stoffman N (2017) Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. Quart. J. Econom. 132(2):665–712.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kotha R, George G, Srikanth K (2013) Bridging the mutual knowledge gap: Coordination and the commercialization of university science. Acad. Management J. 56(2):498–524.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 (John Wiley, New York), 3–90.Google Scholar
• Krackhardt D (1999) The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. Bacharach SB, Andrews SB, Knoke D, eds. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 16 (JAIPress, Stamford, CT), 183–210.Google Scholar
• Krauss RM, Fussell SR (1991) Perspective-taking in communication: Representations of others’ knowledge in reference. Soc. Cognition 9(1):2–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lahiri N (2010) Geographic distribution of R&D activity: How does it affect innovation quality? Acad. Management J. 53(5):1194–1209.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lai R, D’Amour A, Yu A, Fleming L (2011) Disambiguation and co-authorship networks of the U.S. patent inventor database (1975–2010). Accessed February 1, 2013, https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/5F1RRI.Google Scholar
• Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M (2004) Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Econom. J. 114(495):441–465.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
• Lau DC, Murnighan JK (2005) Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines. Acad. Management J. 48(4):645–659.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leahey E, Beckman CM, Stanko TL (2017) Prominent but less productive: The impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research. Admin. Sci. Quart. 62(1):105–139.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leavitt HJ (1951) Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. J. Abnormal Soc. Psych. 46(1):38–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leenders RTA, Van Engelen JM, Kratzer J (2003) Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: A social network perspective. J. Engrg. Techn. Management 20(1):69–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leonard D, Swap W (1999) When Sparks Fly: Igniting Creativity in Groups (Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA).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, Lange D, Gillis L (2005) Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organ. Sci. 16(6):581–598.Link, Google Scholar
• Lind JT, Mehlum H (2010) With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bull. Econom. Statist. 72(1):109–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers A (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J. Appl. Psych. 85(2):273–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadyen MA, Cannella AA (2004) Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Acad. Management J. 47(5):735–746.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meilich O (2006) Bivariate models of fit in contingency theory: Critique and a polynomial regression alternative. Organ. Res. Methods 9(2):161–193.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
• Mowery DC, Oxley JE, Silverman BS (1996) Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management J. 17(S2):77–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newell S, Tansley C, Huang J (2004) Social capital and knowledge integration in an ERP project team: The importance of bridging and bonding. British J. Management 15(S1):43–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nishii LH, Goncalo JA (2008) Demographic faultlines and creativity in diverse groups. Phillips KW, Mannix EA, Neale M, eds. Research on Managing Groups and Teams: Vol. 11, Diversity and Groups (JAI Press, Stamford, CT), 1–26.Google Scholar
• Oh H, Chung M, Labianca G (2004) Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties. Acad. Management J. 47(6):860–875.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Okhuysen GA, Eisenhardt KM (2002) Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility. Organ. Sci. 13(4):370–386.Link, Google Scholar
• Perry-Smith JE, Shalley CE (2003) The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 28(1):89–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phene A, Fladmoe-Lindquist K, Marsh L (2006) Breakthrough innovations in the US biotechnology industry: The effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strategic Management J. 27(4):369–388.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Poincaré H, Newman J (1908) Mathematical creation. Scientific Work Creativity: Advice From Masters 1:177–183.Google Scholar
• Reagans R, Zuckerman E (2001) Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organ. Sci. 12(4):502–517.Link, 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
• Robert LPJ, Dennis AR, Ahuja MK (2008) Social capital and knowledge integration in digitally enabled teams. Inform. Systems Res. 19(3):314–334.Link, Google Scholar
• Rosenkopf L, Almeida P (2003) Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Sci. 49(6):751–766.Link, Google Scholar
• Rulke D, Galaskiewicz J (2000) Distribution of knowledge, group network structure, and group performance. Management Sci. 46(5):612–625.Link, Google Scholar
• Salazar MR, Lant TK, Fiore SM, Salas E (2012) Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Res. 43(5):527–558.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shaw ME (1964) Communication networks. Berkowitz L, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 1 (Academic, New York), 111–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simons T, Pelled LH, Smith KA (1999) Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Acad. Management J. 42(6):662–673.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Singh J (2008) Distributed R&D, cross-regional knowledge integration and quality of innovative output. Res. Policy 37(1):77–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Singh J, Fleming L (2010) Lone inventors as sources of breakthroughs: Myth or reality? Management Sci. 56(1):41–56.Link, Google Scholar
• Singh H, Kryscynski D, Li X, Gopal R (2016) Pipes, pools, and filters: How collaboration networks affect innovative performance. Strategic Management J. 37(8):1649–1666.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Skilton PF, Dooley KJ (2010) The effects of repeat collaboration on creative abrasion. Acad. Management Rev. 35(1):118–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sorensen J, Stuart TE (2000) Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(1):81–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stuart TE, Podolny JM (1996) Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management J. 17(S1):21–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tajfel H, Turner JC (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Worchel S, Austin WG, eds. Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Nelson-Hall, Chicago), 7–24.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
• Teodoridis F (2018) Understanding team knowledge production: The interrelated roles of technology and expertise. Management Sci. 64(8):3625–3648.Link, Google Scholar
• Teodoridis F, Bikard M, Vakili K (2019) Creativity at the knowledge frontier: The impact of specialization in fast and slow-paced domains. Admin. Sci. Quart. 64(4):894–927.Crossref, 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
• Tortoriello M, McEvily B, Krackhardt D (2015) Being a catalyst of innovation: The role of knowledge diversity and network closure. Organ. Sci. 26(2):423–438.Link, Google Scholar
• Trajtenberg M (1990) A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND J. Econom. 21(1):172–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tzabbar D (2009) When does scientist recruitment affect technological repositioning? Acad. Management J. 52(5):873–896.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tzabbar D, Vestal A (2015) Bridging the social chasm in geographically distributed R&D teams: The moderating effects of relational strength and status asymmetry on the novelty of team innovation. Organ. Sci. 26(3):811–829.Link, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B, Lancaster R (2003) Relational embeddedness and learning: The case of bank loan managers and their clients. Management Sci. 49(4):383–399.Link, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342(6157):468–472.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi BD (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(1):35–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Knippenberg D (2017) Team innovation. Annual Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 4:211–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Knippenberg D, Schippers MC (2007) Work group diversity. Annual Rev. Psych. 58:515–541.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Knippenberg D, De Dreu CK, Homan AC (2004) Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. J. Appl. Psych. 89(6):1008–1022.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vestal A, Danneels E (2022) Technological distance and breakthrough inventions in multi-cluster teams: How intra-and inter-location ties bridge the gap. Admin. Sci. Quart. 67(1):167–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Hippel E, von Krogh G (2016) Identifying viable “need–solution pairs”: Problem solving without problem formulation. Organ. Sci. 27(1):207–221.Link, Google Scholar
• Wang C, Rodan S, Fruin M, Xu X (2014) Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation. Acad. Management J. 57(2):484–514.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, vol. 8 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weitzman ML (1998) Recombinant growth. Quart. J. Econom. 113(2):331–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams KY, O’Reilly CA (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
• Wong SS (2008) Task knowledge overlap and knowledge variety: The role of advice network structures and impact on group effectiveness. J. Organ. Behav. 29(5):591–614.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036–1039.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zahra SA, Neubaum DO, Hayton J (2020) What do we know about knowledge integration: Fusing micro-and macro-organizational perspectives. Acad. Management Ann. 14(1):160–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zucker LG, Darby MR (2009) Nanobank Data Description, Release 2.0 (Beta-Test) (UCLA Center for International Science, Technology, and Cultural Policy, Los Angeles).Google Scholar