Improving Virtual Team Collaboration Paradox Management: A Field Experiment

References

• Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ. Sci. 20(4):696–717.Link, Google Scholar
• Ashforth BE, Reingen PH (2014) Functions of dysfunction: Managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Admin. Sci. Quart. 59(3):474–516.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aust I, Brandl J, Keegan AE, Lensges M (2017) Tensions in managing human resources: Introducing a paradox framework and research agenda. Smith WK, Lewis ML, Jarzabkowski P, Langley A, eds. Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 413–433.Google Scholar
• Baldwin TT, Ford JK (1988) Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psych. 41(1):63–105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell BS, Kozlowski SW (2002) A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group Organ. Management 27(1):14–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benefield GA (2018) Effects of Group Openness to Diversity, Closure, and Linguistic Patterns in Virtual Teams (University of California, Davis, Davis, CA).Google Scholar
• Bierly PE III, Stark EM, Kessler EH (2009) The moderating effects of virtuality on the antecedents and outcome of NPD team trust. J. Product Innovation Management 26(5):551–565.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blader SL, Tyler TR (2009) Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. J. Appl. Psych. 94(2):445–464.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Breuer C, Hüffmeier J, Hertel G (2016) Does trust matter more in virtual teams? A meta-analysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as moderators. J. Appl. Psych. 101(8):1151–1177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brewer MB (1991) The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 17(5):475–482.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burke WW, Noumair DA (2015) Organization Development: A Process of Learning and Changing (FT Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ).Google Scholar
• Chen G, Mathieu JE, Bliese PD (2004) A framework for conducting multilevel construct validation. Yammarino FJ, Dansereau F, eds. Research in Multilevel Issues: Multilevel Issues in Organizational Behavior and Processes, vol. 3 (Elsevier, Oxford, UK), 273–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chung CC, Beamish PW (2010) The trap of continual ownership change in international equity joint ventures. Organ. Sci. 21(5):995–1015.Link, Google Scholar
• Cooper D, Rockmann KW, Moteabbed S, Thatcher SMB (2021) Integrator or gremlin? Identity partnerships and team newcomer socialization. Acad. Management Rev. 46(1):128–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Creswell JW (2015) A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Creswell JW, Clark VLP (2017) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed. (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Cunha MPE, Putnam LL (2019) Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic Organ. 17(1):95–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dubé L, Robey D (2009) Surviving the paradoxes of virtual teamwork. Inform. Systems J. 19(1):3–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duffy K (2021) Nearly 40% of workers would consider quitting if their bosses made them return to the office full time, a new survey shows. Business Insider (June 2), https://www.businessinsider.com/quit-job-flexible-remote-working-from-home-return-to-office-2021-6.Google Scholar
• Eddy ER, Tannenbaum SI, Mathieu JE (2013) Helping teams to help themselves: Comparing two team-led debriefing methods. Personnel Psych. 66(4):975–1008.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, Lei Z (2014) Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 1(1):23–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellis AP, Mai KM, Christian JS (2013) Examining the asymmetrical effects of goal faultlines in groups: A categorization-elaboration approach. J. Appl. Psych. 98(6):948–961.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Esser JK (1998) Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 73(2–3):116–141.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fairhurst GT (2019) Reflections: Return paradox to the wild? Paradox interventions and their implications. J. Change Management 19(1):6–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fairhurst GT, Smith WK, Banghart SG, Lewis MW, Putnam LL, Raisch S, Schad J (2016) Diverging and converging: Integrative insights on a paradox meta-perspective. Acad. Management Ann. 10(1):173–182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farjoun M (2010) Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Acad. Management Rev. 35(2):202–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferguson AJ, Downes PE, Brymer RA, Hayman MG, Stoverink AC (2024) Relieving the pressure: Team familiarity attenuates external conformity pressure on team member decisions. J. Management 50(5):1836–1864.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
• Gibbs J (2009) Dialectics in a global software team: Negotiating tensions across time, space, and culture. Human Relations 62(6):905–935.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Management J. 47(2):209–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibson CB, Dunlop PD, Majchrzak A, Chia T (2022) Sustaining effectiveness in global teams: The coevolution of knowledge management activities and technology affordances. Organ. Sci. 33(3):1018–1048.Link, Google Scholar
• Gibson CB, Huang L, Kirkman BL, Shapiro DL (2014) Where global and virtual meet: The value of examining the intersection of these elements in twenty-first-century teams. Annual Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 1(1):217–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilson LL, Maynard MT, Jones Young NC, Vartiainen M, Hakonen M (2015) Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. J. Management 41(5):1313–1337.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grant AM, Wall TD (2009) The neglected science and art of quasi-experimentation: Why-to, when-to, and how-to advice for organizational researchers. Organ. Res. Methods 12(4):653–686.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Griffith TL, Neale MA (2001) Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Res. Organ. Behav. 23:379–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gully SM, Incalcaterra KA, Joshi A, Beaubien JM (2002) A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. J. Appl. Psych. 87(5):819–832.Crossref, 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
• Hill NS, Bartol KM (2016) Empowering leadership and effective collaboration in geographically dispersed teams. Personnel Psych. 69(1):159–198.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hill NS, Bartol KM, Tesluk PE, Langa GA (2009) Organizational context and face-to-face interaction: Influences on the development of trust and collaborative behaviors in computer-mediated groups. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 108(2):187–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hill AD, Johnson SG, Greco LM, O’Boyle EH, Walter SL (2021) Endogeneity: A review and agenda for the methodology-practice divide affecting micro and macro research. J. Management 47(1):105–143.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hinds PJ, Bailey DE (2003) Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organ. Sci. 14(6):615–632.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
• Homan AC, Van Knippenberg D, Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CK (2007) Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. J. Appl. Psych. 92(5):1189–1199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Horwitz SK, Horwitz IB (2007) The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. J. Management 33(6):987–1015.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson M, Jundt D (2005) Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Rev. Psych. 56:517–543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G (1984) Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J. Appl. Psych. 69(1):85–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Janis IL (1983) Groupthink (Houghton Mifflin, Boston).Google Scholar
• Johnson B (2014) Reflections: A perspective on paradox and its application to modern management. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 50(2):206–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson B (2020) And: Making a Difference by Leveraging Polarity, Paradox or Dilemma (Human Resource Development Press, Amherst, MA).Google Scholar
• Joshi A, Roh H (2009) The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Acad. Management J. 52(3):599–627.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaba A, Wishart I, Fraser K, Coderre S, McLaughlin K (2016) Are we at risk for groupthink in our approach to teamwork interventions in healthcare? Medical Ed. 50(4):400–408.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kanawattanachai P, Yoo Y (2002) Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 11(3–4):187–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kankanhalli A, Tan BC, Wei KK (2006) Conflict and performance in global virtual teams. J. Management Inform. Systems 23(3):237–274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keiser NL, Arthur W Jr (2021) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the after-action review (or debrief) and factors that influence its effectiveness. J. Appl. Psych. 106(7):1007–1032.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kirkman BL, Mathieu JE (2005) The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. J. Management 31(5):700–718.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kirkman BL, Rosen B (1999) Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Acad. Management J. 42(1):58–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kirkman BL, Rosen B, Tesluk PE, Gibson CB (2004) The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Acad. Management J. 47(2):175–192.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kozlowski SW, Ilgen DR (2006) Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psych. Sci. Public Interest 7(3):77–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lacerenza CN, Marlow SL, Tannenbaum SI, Salas E (2018) Team development interventions: Evidence-based approaches for improving teamwork. Amer. Psych. 73(4):517–531.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langley AN, Smallman C, Tsoukas H, Van de Ven AH (2013) Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Acad. Management J. 56(1):1–13.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
• Leonardelli GJ, Pickett CL, Brewer MB (2010) Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. Adv. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 43:63–113.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leonardi PM, Treem JW, Jackson MH (2010) The connectivity paradox: Using technology to both decrease and increase perceptions of distance in distributed work arrangements. J. Appl. Comm. Res. 38(1):85–105.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
• Lewis MW (2000) Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Acad. Management Rev. 25(4):760–776.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis MW, Smith WK (2022) Reflections on the 2021 AMR decade award: Navigating paradox is paradoxical. Acad. Management Rev. 47(4):528–548.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lipnack J, Stamps J (1997) Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time, and Organizations with Technology (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Luciano MM, Mathieu JE, Park S, Tannenbaum SI (2018) A fitting approach to construct and measurement alignment: The role of big data in advancing dynamic theories. Organ. Res. Methods 21(3):592–632.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lüscher LS, Lewis MW (2008) Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Acad. Management J. 51(2):221–240.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lüscher LS, Lewis M, Ingram A (2006) The social construction of organizational change paradoxes. J. Organ. Change Management 19(4):491–502.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Majchrzak A, Markus ML (2013) Technology affordances and constraints in management information systems (MIS). Kessler E, ed. Encyclopedia of Management Theory (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA), 1–5.Google Scholar
• Majchrzak A, Malhotra A, John R (2005) Perceived individual collaboration know-how development through information technology–enabled contextualization: Evidence from distributed teams. Inform. Systems Res. 16(1):9–27.Link, Google Scholar
• Malhotra A, Majchrzak A (2014) Enhancing performance of geographically distributed teams through targeted use of information and communication technologies. Human Relations 67(4):389–411.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malhotra A, Majchrzak A, Lyytinen K (2021) Socio-technical affordances for large-scale collaborations: Introduction to a virtual special issue. Organ. Sci. 32(5):1371–1390.Link, Google Scholar
• Malhotra A, Majchrzak A, Rosen B (2007) Leading virtual teams. Acad. Management Perspect. 21(1):60–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maloney MM, Bresman H, Zellmer-Bruhn ME, Beaver GR (2016) Contextualization and context theorizing in teams research: A look back and a path forward. Acad. Management Ann. 10(1):891–942.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):805–835.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mathieu JE, Hollenbeck JR, van Knippenberg D, Ilgen DR (2017) A century of work teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. J. Appl. Psych. 102(3):452–467.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maynard MT, Luciano MM, D’Innocenzo L, Mathieu JE, Dean M (2014) Modeling time-lagged reciprocal psychological empowerment–performance relationships. J. Appl. Psych. 99(6):1244–1253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maynard MT, Mathieu JE, Gilson LL, Sanchez DR, 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
• Mazmanian M, Orlikowski W, Yates J (2013) The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organ. Sci. 24(5):1337–1357.Link, Google Scholar
• Mell JN, Jang S, Chai S (2021) Bridging temporal divides: Temporal brokerage in global teams and its impact on individual performance. Organ. Sci. 32(3):731–751.Link, Google Scholar
• Miller S (2021) Reopening strategies recognize many will keep working remotely. SHRM (May 12), https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/reopening-strategies-recognize-many-will-keep-working-remotely.aspx.Google Scholar
• Miron-Spektor E, Erez M, Naveh E (2011) The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Acad. Management J. 54(4):740–760.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miron-Spektor E, Ingram A, Keller J, Smith WK, Lewis MW (2018) Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Acad. Management J. 61(1):26–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Montoya-Weiss MM, Massey AP, Song M (2001) Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Acad. Management J. 44(6):1251–1262.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moreland RL, Levine JM (1982) Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes in individual-group relations. Adv. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 15:137–192.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morrison-Smith S, Ruiz J (2020) Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: A literature review. SN Appl. Sci. 2:1–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murninghan JK, Conlon DE (1991) The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Admin. Sci. Quart. 36(2):165–186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2017) Mplus User’s Guide, 8th ed. (Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles).Google Scholar
• O’Leary MB, Cummings JN (2007) The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quart. 31(3):433–452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pentland BT, Hærem T, Hillison D (2011) The (n)ever-changing world: Stability and change in organizational routines. Organ. Sci. 22(6):1369–1383.Link, Google Scholar
• Peters LM, Manz CC (2007) Identifying antecedents of virtual team collaboration. Team Performance Management 13(3/4):117–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Poole MS, Van de Ven AH (1989) Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Acad. Management Rev. 14(4):562–578.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Preacher KJ, Curran PJ, Bauer DJ (2006) Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. J. Ed. Behav. Statist. 31(4):437–448.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Purvanova RK, Kenda R (2018) Paradoxical virtual leadership: Reconsidering virtuality through a paradox lens. Group Organ. Management 43(5):752–786.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Purvanova RK, Kenda R (2022) The impact of virtuality on team effectiveness in organizational and non‐organizational teams: A meta‐analysis. Appl. Psych. 71(3):1082–1131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Putnam LL (1986) Contradiction and paradoxes in organizations. Thayer L, ed. Organizational Communication: Emerging Perspectives, vol. 1 (Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ), 151–167.Google Scholar
• Putnam LL, Fairhurst GT, Banghart S (2016) Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Acad. Management Ann. 10(1):65–171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosso BD (2014) Creativity and constraints: Exploring the role of constraints in the creative processes of research and development teams. Organ. Stud. 35(4):551–585.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
• 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
• Sarker S, Ahuja M, Sarker S, Kirkeby S (2011) The role of communication and trust in global virtual teams: A social network perspective. J. Management Inform. Systems 28(1):273–310.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saunders CS, Ahuja MK (2006) Are all distributed teams the same? Differentiating between temporary and ongoing distributed teams. Small Group Res. 37(6):662–700.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schad J, Lewis MW, Raisch S, Smith WK (2016) Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Acad. Management Ann. 10(1):5–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shadish W, Cook TD, Campbell DT (2001) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, 2nd ed. (Cengage Learning, Stamford, CT).Google Scholar
• Shuffler ML, DiazGranados D, Salas E (2011) There’s a science for that: Team development interventions in organizations. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 20(6):365–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shuffler ML, Diazgranados D, Maynard MT, Salas E (2018) Developing, sustaining, and maximizing team effectiveness: An integrative, dynamic perspective of team development interventions. Acad. Management Ann. 12(2):688–724.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sireci SG (1998) The construct of content validity. Soc. Indicators Res. 45:83–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sireci S, Faulkner-Bond M (2014) Validity evidence based on test content. Psicothema 26(1):100–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith WK (2014) Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Acad. Management J. 57(6):1592–1623.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith WK, Berg DN (1987) Paradoxes of Group Life: Understanding Conflict, Paralysis, and Movement in Group Dynamics (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Smith WK, Lewis MW (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad. Management Rev. 36(2):381–403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith WK, Tushman ML (2005) Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organ. Sci. 16(5):522–536.Link, Google Scholar
• Society for Human Resource Management (2012) Virtual teams. Retrieved January 15, 2014, http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/articles/pages/virtualteams.aspx.Google Scholar
• Spector PE, Brannick MT (2011) Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organ. Res. Methods 14(2):287–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sundaramurthy C, Lewis M (2003) Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Acad. Management Rev. 28(3):397–415.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sundheim D (2015) Debriefing: A simple tool to help your team tackle tough problems. Harvard Bus. Rev. (July 2), https://hbr.org/2015/07/debriefing-a-simple-tool-to-help-your-team-tackle-tough-problems.Google Scholar
• Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Reicher SD, Wetherell MS (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory (Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Vaillant GE (2000) Adaptive mental mechanisms: Their role in a positive psychology. Amer. Psych. 55(1):89–98.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
• 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
• Wang J, Cheng GHL, Chen T, Leung K (2019) Team creativity/innovation in culturally diverse teams: A meta‐analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 40(6):693–708.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Watzlawick P, Weakland JH, Fisch R (1974) Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution (Norton, New York).Google Scholar
• Weisweiler S, Nikitopoulos A, Netzel J, Frey D (2013) Gaining insight to transfer of training through the lens of social psychology. Ed. Res. Rev. 8(1):14–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wolfson MA, Tannenbaum SI, Mathieu JE, Maynard MT (2018) A cross-level investigation of informal field-based learning and performance improvements. J. Appl. Psych. 103(1):14–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Worchel S (1979) Cooperation and the reduction of intergroup conflict: Some determining factors. Austin W, Worchel S, eds. Handbook of Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology (Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA), 262–273.Google Scholar
• Yoo Y, Kanawattanachai P (2001) Developments of transactive memory systems and collective mind in virtual teams. Internat. J. Organ. Anal. 9(2):187–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang MJ, Zhang Y, Law KS (2022) Paradoxical leadership and innovation in work teams: The multilevel mediating role of ambidexterity and leader vision as a boundary condition. Acad. Management J. 65(5):1652–1679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Waldman DA, Han YL, Li XB (2015) Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Acad. Management J. 58(2):538–566.Crossref, Google Scholar