32.full

A CONFIGURAL THEORY OF TEAMPROCESSES: ACCOUNTING FOR THE

STRUCTURE OF TASKWORK AND TEAMWORK

EEAN R. CRAWFORDUniversity of Iowa

JEFFERY A. LEPINEArizona State University

Theories of team processes have focused on content and temporal relevance, whilelargely ignoring implications of structure. We apply social network concepts to pro-pose theory that articulates structural configurations of taskwork and teamworkprocesses in terms of closure, centralization, and subgrouping. Our theory challengesthe conventional view that increases in team processes are inherently and uniformlybeneficial and explains how structural configurations involve trade-offs that must beacknowledged in our research and practice.

Scholars have made a great deal of progressin defining team processes, specifying their con-tent, and detailing their applicable timing(Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). In particular,Marks and colleagues’ framework of teamworkprocesses, distinguished from both taskwork(actions and interactions that involve accom-plishment of core team tasks) and emergentstates (characteristic levels of feelings orthoughts among team members), consists oftransition processes, which occur prior to or be-tween performance episodes when member in-teraction focuses primarily on evaluation andplanning activities to guide team accomplish-ment of objectives; action processes, which occurduring performance episodes when member in-teraction focuses primarily on coordination andmonitoring activities that relate directly to ac-complishment of objectives; and interpersonalprocesses, which are ongoing at all times whenmember interaction is focused on managing in-terpersonal relationships. These team processeshave been conceptualized through compositionmodels that reflect shared perceptions of theextent to which process interactions occur gen-erally or uniformly among members. Teams thatmake greater use of these processes during theappropriate time frame are believed to operatemore smoothly, to function more effectively, and

to be more successful in accomplishing teamgoals and satisfying individual members’needs. Meta-analytic evidence demonstratesthat these three team process dimensions arepositively associated with team performance,member satisfaction, cohesion, and potency andthat each reflects a broader overarching team-work process construct (LePine, Piccolo, Jackson,Mathieu, & Saul, 2008).

It has long been recognized, however, thatinteraction in small groups and teams is inher-ently structural in nature (Katz & Kahn, 1978;Stogdill, 1959), occurring in patterns that arecomplex, dynamic, discontinuous, and nonuni-form (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005;Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith, 1999; Kozlow-ski & Klein, 2000; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, &Gilson, 2008; McGrath, 1997; McGrath, Arrow, &Berdahl, 2000; Stewart, Fulmer, & Barrick, 2005).Therefore, to better account for functioning andeffectiveness of small groups and teams, theexisting content-focused perspective on teamprocess should be complemented with theorythat explicitly considers the structure of teamprocess. Such theory is vital to our understand-ing of team functioning and effectiveness. Itwould allow us to account for familiar team sit-uations, such as when members exert dispropor-tionate influence on team process interaction byvirtue of the positions they occupy, their relativestatus, or their standing with regard to cliquesthat exist within the team (Mathieu et al., 2008).Such theory might also question conventional

We thank former editor Amy Hillman and the anonymousreviewers for providing us with very helpful guidancethroughout the review process.

� Academy of Management Review2013, Vol. 38, No. 1, 32–48.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0206

32Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyrightholder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

wisdom that teamwork is inherently good andthat the more there is of it the better off the teamwill be. Rather, because of differences in task-work arrangements, coupled with limitations onteam members’ time, attention, and ability tomanage multiple relationships, there may beadvantages to certain configurations of team-work interaction relative to uniform increases inlevels of teamwork interaction.

The structural perspective of team phenom-ena we are suggesting here is not without prec-edent in the literature. For example, Stewart etal. (2005) examined variance and skewness mea-sures of team task and social roles to investi-gate the relationship between team memberpersonality and team effectiveness. LePine(2003, 2005) examined role structure adaptation,or adjustments to task-focused interactions inresponse to unforeseen changes that make rou-tine patterns of team interaction problematic.Hollenbeck and colleagues studied patterns ofgeneral team communication, hierarchies, androles to understand asymmetries in structuraladaptation (e.g., Davison, Hollenbeck, Barnes,Sleesman, & Ilgen, 2012; Hollenbeck, Ellis, Hum-phrey, Garza, & Ilgen, 2011; Hollenbeck et al.,2002). Finally, researchers have assessed the im-plications for team effectiveness of relation-ships that are instrumental (e.g., “To what extentdo you go to this person to ask for advice?”) andexpressive (e.g., “To what extent do you social-ize with this person outside the work setting?”)in nature (e.g., Balkundi, Barsness, & Michael,2009; Hansen, 1999; Mehra, Dixon, Brass, & Rob-ertson, 2006; Oh, Chung, & Labianca, 2004; Rea-gans & Zuckerman, 2001; Sparrowe, Liden,Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001). Unfortunately, al-though each of these independent lines of re-search has helped us appreciate features ofteams that are inherently structural, there is nocohesive overarching theoretical frameworkthat explains how configurations of differentteam processes, both independently and jointly,influence team effectiveness. The general pur-pose of this article is to address this shortcom-ing in our theoretical understanding of teams.

Specifically, we describe compilation emer-gence of team process interaction capturedthrough structural configurations derived fromsocial network analysis, and we propose howthese configurations change our predictionsabout relationships between team processesand team effectiveness. We advance teamwork

theory by describing in detail key patterns ofteam member interaction, rather than focusingsolely on the general level or shared perceptionof team interaction, and by explaining howthese patterns manifest in relationships withteam effectiveness that are more complex thanthose traditionally predicted by current team-work theory. An important advantage of recog-nizing configurations of team processes is that itbecomes possible to better understand andmanage trade-offs associated with various con-figurations (Coleman, 1988; Granovetter, 2005;Obstfeldt, 2005; Oh, Labianca, & Chung, 2006).Furthermore, our application of the Marks et al.(2001) framework advances social network re-search by expanding the content of interactionbeyond examinations of relations as being ge-nerically instrumental (e.g., work-related ad-vice) or expressive (e.g., friendship). That is, weposition taskwork and teamwork as alternativenetwork relations that connect team members.In sum, the theory we advance serves to accountfor the specific types of resources and informa-tion flows that can explain more comprehen-sively why team processes influence teameffectiveness.

A CONFIGURAL THEORY OFTEAM PROCESSES

Kozlowski and Klein (2000) distinguished unit-level constructs that emerge from the character-istics, behaviors, or cognitions of unit membersas having either shared or configural properties.Shared unit constructs describe characteristicsthat are common to or shared by the members ofthe unit. Shared unit properties emerge as aconsensual, collective aspect of the unit as awhole and are based on composition models ofemergence. Composition models assume iso-morphism between manifestations of constructsat different levels and rely on within-unit con-sensus (agreement) or consistency (reliability) tojustify composition of the unit-level construct.

Configural unit constructs reflect the array,pattern, or configuration of individual membercharacteristics or interactions. Unlike sharedunit properties, configural unit properties do notconverge or coalesce among members; instead,they are based on compilation models of emer-gence. Compilation models do not assumeisomorphism and convergence but, rather, dis-continuity and complex nonlinear emergence of

2013 33Crawford and LePine

constructs between levels. These models are notconcerned with agreement or consistencyamong members with respect to some generalteam property but with patterns, distribution,and variability among specific member contri-butions. Because the structure of team processesexists in the pattern of interactions among teammembers (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999), compila-tion models are a prerequisite for a configuraltheory of team process. Moreover, given thatteam process interaction involves both taskworkand teamwork, a comprehensive theory of teamprocess should account for configurations ofboth types of member interaction.

Compilation Emergence of Taskwork,Teamwork, and Multiplex Processes

Taskwork involves members’ interactionswith tasks, tools, machines, and systems to carryout the team’s work (Bowers, Braun, & Morgan,1997: 90). In compilation terms, a taskwork net-work emerges as the set of ties or connectionsbetween members who are jointly involved withthe same tasks, tools, or systems. In other words,members who are involved in the same task orwho share a tool or work on the same systemhave a taskwork tie. A stronger taskwork tieindicates that a pair of team members sharesmany tasks or tools or shares tasks or tools in away that constitutes a high level of memberinvolvement. A weaker taskwork tie indicatesthat a pair of members has few tasks or tools incommon or that their sharing of tasks or toolsconstitutes a low level of member involvement.At any point in time, teams must manage taskaccomplishment in the pursuit of multiple goalsrequiring different contributions from theirmembers (Marks et al., 2001; McGrath, 1991).The taskwork network depicts how membertaskwork contributions are arranged. Teamtaskwork ties may arise by formal means—forexample, through explicit task assignments orthrough tasks inherent to members’ positions ina team hierarchy—or they may arise more or-ganically—for example, through self-managedteams’ decisions on how to allocate taskwork.Furthermore, task relations may change and de-velop over time as existing team members altertask sequencing and develop additional proce-dures or as team memberships change, withnew members rotating in and out of existingteams. In contrast to traditional approaches,

which depict members’ general shared percep-tions of the extent to which tasks are related(Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993), taskworknetworks depict the structure of workflow rela-tions across team members directly (Kozlowskiet al., 1999: 251), indicating who depends onwhom to accomplish work team member byteam member.

Whereas the taskwork network depicts whatthe team members are doing together with re-gard to task-focused activities, the teamworknetwork depicts how they actually are interact-ing to accomplish those tasks. Teamwork inter-action involves member interactions to direct,align, coordinate, and monitor taskwork toachieve collective goals (Marks et al., 2001: 357).As a separate compilation, the teamwork net-work emerges as the set of ties or connectionsbetween members who interact to set goals,make plans, coordinate, help, and motivate eachother. In other words, team members who indi-cate they set goals and make plans together,who monitor each other’s progress and provideeach other backup, or who work to manage eachother’s motivation and stress levels have ateamwork tie. In Table 1 we present several ex-ample questions that would reflect teamworkties among members. A stronger teamwork tieindicates that a pair of team members signifi-cantly interacts to make plans, track progress,and motivate each other. A weaker teamwork tieindicates that a pair of team members interactsvery little to discuss team goals, coordinate andprovide assistance, or encourage each other.

It is important to note here that we do notassume that taskwork structures necessarilyproduce corresponding teamwork structures.Members of most teams are free to orchestrateand support the work as well as manage socio-emotional dynamics as they wish, for most ofthese supportive interactions are more sponta-neous and discretionary relative to interactionsthat are focused on taskwork (LePine, Hanson,Borman, & Motowidlo, 2000). Team memberssharing a task may plan and set goals together,or they may not. They may track their progresstogether and help each other, or they may not.They may encourage and motivate each other,or they may not. Thus, what team members areassigned to do may be quite different from howthey actually go about doing it (Marks et al.,2001). Because of this lack of correspondence, aconfigural theory of team processes must ac-

34 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

count for whether team members have overlapin their taskwork and teamwork interactions.

In the first column of Figure 1, we depict task-work ties (solid lines) simultaneously with team-work ties (dashed lines). By comparing the pres-ence of taskwork and teamwork ties betweenteam members, it becomes apparent that thereare three general types of team member rela-tionships: (1) simplex taskwork ties, where nocorresponding teamwork tie exists; (2) simplexteamwork ties, where no corresponding task-work tie exists; and (3) multiplex (“bundled”;

Burt & Schøtt, 1985) ties, which comprise over-lapping taskwork and teamwork ties. The threeright-most columns of Figure 1 break out each ofthese types of relations, with taskwork ties (ex-clusively) presented in the second column,teamwork ties (exclusively) presented in thethird column, and multiplex taskwork-teamworkties presented in the fourth column. In sum, thetaskwork network, based on the tasks membersare jointly involved in, is distinct from the team-work network, based on how team members in-teract to accomplish those tasks; furthermore,

TABLE 1Teamwork Network Sociometric Survey Questions

Marks et al. (2001)Teamwork Process Dimensions Example Questions

Among the members of your team . . .Transition

Mission analysis

Goal specificationStrategy formulation

With whom do you discuss the team’s tasks, the resources you need, and thechallenges you expect to face?

With whom do you set and prioritize goals?With whom do you develop alternative strategies for accomplishing your

tasks?Action

Monitoring progressSystems monitoring

Team monitoring and backup

Coordination

With whom do you track progress toward the team’s goals?With whom do you track team resources and changing conditions outside

the team?Whom do you help complete their tasks? (giving ties)Who helps you complete your tasks? (receiving ties)With whom do you coordinate and integrate your work efforts?

InterpersonalConflict management

Motivation and confidence building

Affect management

With whom can you have a healthy debate with minimal dysfunctionalconflict?

Whom do you encourage and motivate, especially when things are difficult?(giving ties)

Who encourages and motivates you, especially when things are difficult?(receiving ties)

Whom do you help manage their stress in order to keep a good emotionalbalance in the team? (giving ties)

Who helps you manage your stress in order to keep a good emotionalbalance in the team? (receiving ties)

FIGURE 1Taskwork and Teamwork Network Compilation Emergence


the overlap (or lack thereof) of these networkscan be accounted for with multiplex taskwork-teamwork ties, simplex taskwork ties, and sim-plex teamwork ties.

Configurations of Taskwork, Teamwork, andMultiplex Processes

There are many potential configurations thatcould reflect between-team differences in thestructure of taskwork and teamwork interaction.Unfortunately, there is no direct guidance re-garding the set of configural concepts that couldbe used to sufficiently reflect team process phe-nomena. Early research on collective units andorganizational systems, however, suggeststhere are three fundamental elements of struc-ture that can describe the most essential pat-terns of interaction in teams. These elementsconsist of (1) the level of interconnectedness orclosure; (2) the relative centralization of hierar-chy, status, position, or power; and (3) the extentof specialization, departmentalization, or sub-grouping (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Stogdill, 1959;Thompson, 1967). We recognize that several spe-cific indices exist to capture each of these basicstructures, but for our purpose it is sufficient tofocus on the three more general configurationsrather than the more nuanced examples.

Closure relationships with team effective-ness. Traditional teamwork theory suggests thatincreasing teamwork is uniformly beneficial forteam effectiveness (LePine et al., 2008). The rea-soning is that for teams to successfully accom-plish their goals, they need to have a solidunderstanding of their objectives, develop strat-egies and contingencies for accomplishingthose objectives, track their progress and anyother environmental or system factors that affectthat progress, coordinate their efforts, and pro-vide help when needed, all while channelingconflicts and emotions for positive team ends(Marks et al., 2001). Thus, to the extent that teamsincreasingly execute these processes, theyshould be increasingly effective. Similarly, so-cial network scholars suggest that closure,which refers to increasing interconnectednessin team network interaction, is beneficial be-cause the number of connections indicates ateam’s capacity to execute tasks and coordinateits actions, thereby enhancing its performance(Balkundi & Harrison, 2006; Hansen, 1999; Rea-gans & Zuckerman, 2001). However, although in-

creasing team interaction may be beneficial forthese reasons, these same interactions come ata cost.

Higher levels of taskwork increase the likeli-hood that members approach peak levels wherethe workload begins to overwhelm their capac-ity, which increases stress, reduces motivation,and hampers individual performance (Beehr,Walsh, & Taber, 1976). Also, although closed net-works are more conducive to initiating coordi-nated action by facilitating the prealignment ofmembers’ interests and the development ofnorms that constrain opportunistic action (Cole-man, 1988; Granovetter, 2005), they also posegreater obstacles to the generation of new andinnovative ideas by reducing access to novelperspectives, increasing redundancy of informa-tion circulating within the network, and con-straining individual autonomy to initiate action(Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973; Obstfeld, 2005).Consistent with this notion, theory on group in-teraction systems suggests that groups withmoderate closure offer members the greatestfreedom to function (Stogdill, 1959). Since agroup can only exist under the constraint that itsmembers remain in the system and continue tointeract with each other, freedom is minimal in agroup of minimum closure because individualaction is limited to staying in the system orleaving the system. Freedom is also minimal ina group of maximum closure because individualbehavior becomes entirely determined or con-trolled by the system. Thus, groups of moderatetaskwork closure provide members with somepredictability of expectations for actions initi-ated by other members of the group but alsopermit individuals to have some areas of action(initiative) that are not responses to the actionsof other members.

With respect to teamwork, Marks et al. (2001)recognized that there is a significant communi-cation component required from each of theteamwork processes that must operate in tan-dem with the information generation compo-nent. For example, the transition process of mis-sion analysis not only involves interpreting theteam’s mission but also includes verbal discus-sion to ensure that relevant team members havea shared vision of the task purpose and its re-lated objectives (2001: 365). The action process ofmonitoring goals “involves not only detectingprogress but transmitting that progress to teammembers” (2001: 366; emphasis added). As a final


example, the interpersonal process of affectmanagement requires not only assessing teammember emotional levels but also actively com-municating to calm members down, control frus-tration levels, boost morale, and provide empa-thy (2001: 369). Thus, inherent in each of theteamwork processes is a communication re-quirement of additional time, attention, and en-ergy from each team member, beyond attentionthat must be dedicated to taskwork. Becauseindividual actors within the team’s system ofactors have limits on the attention they can de-vote to these communications, there is a maxi-mum point at which the benefits of increasedcoordination become overwhelmed by the costsof communication.

In sum, similar to traditional reasoning, at lowlevels increased closure in unitary taskworkand teamwork networks brings benefits to teameffectiveness because of much greater capacityto coordinate actions, prealign expectations,and establish norms constraining opportunism,but it also brings some burden of increased com-munication, lost autonomy, and reduced innova-tiveness. The initial increases in closure are ex-pected to result in a positive relationship withteam effectiveness. However, there comes apoint at which increasing closure adds little interms of coordination but imposes still greatercosts and constraints in terms of communicationand autonomy, resulting in decreasing returnsand a negative relationship with team effective-ness. Thus, rather than expecting linear positiverelationships, these dynamics result in a nega-tive curvilinear or inverted-U-shaped relation-ship with team effectiveness. We are not propos-ing, however, that this curvilinear effect issymmetrical. Several studies of simplex teamnetworks have shown significant positive lineareffects between team closure and effectiveness(Balkundi & Harrison, 2006), indicating that thereis an overall positive effect of closure. Yet twostudies of informal friendship networks havedemonstrated that the positive linear trend isaccompanied by a significant negative curvilin-ear relationship (Balkundi, Kilduff, Barsness, &Michael, 2007; Oh et al., 2004). These findingssuggest that gains from closure are generallygreater than its costs up to the point of very highlevels of closure—at which point the incremen-tal gains are outstripped by the incrementalcosts, and the relationship with team effective-ness levels off.

As we noted above, existing research on con-figural team concepts has focused on simplexrelations. Yet we described earlier how a con-figural approach to taskwork and teamwork in-teractions allows researchers to understand andexamine the implications of their multiplexity orsimultaneous overlap. Before continuing, it isimportant to mention that this form of multiplex-ity is not the multiplicative interaction of differ-ing levels of taskwork and teamwork closure.Rather, it concerns the direct examination ofmultiplex ties and closure thereof as a relationof its own. In other words, multiplex closure rep-resents increasing joint presence of taskworkand teamwork ties between the same teammembers, not just increasing ties of either typein the team generally. Multiplex relationshipsare fundamentally different from those compris-ing simplex tie content since they are a strongerform of relationship (Oh et al., 2006; Scott, 2000).Indeed, as a unique and stronger relation, mul-tiplex ties have the potential to amplify the dy-namics of the relationships with team effective-ness discussed above.

We expect that, at low levels, increasing clo-sure of multiplex taskwork-teamwork ties willrapidly generate coordination and trust benefitsfor team members as they focus their efforts onstrategizing, tracking, and encouraging a lim-ited number of taskwork partners for whom suchinteraction ought to matter most. However, verystrong ties require consistent interaction tomaintain, and individual constraints on time,attention, and energy keep people from engag-ing in more than several such relationships(Markovsky & Chaffee, 1995). Because the addi-tion of many more strong ties requires muchmore intensive interaction for their mainte-nance, the burdens of communication andlosses of autonomy accrue much more quicklyfor multiplex ties than for simplex ties. As indi-viduals become enmeshed in networks via verystrong relations, they become shackled by struc-ture, they become less identifiable as distinctactors, and they lose the freedom to generateideas and initiate action (Markovsky & Lawler,1994). In essence, we suggest that for multiplextaskwork-teamwork ties, the benefits accruerapidly but the costs also become apparent ear-lier. Thus, the expected relationship betweenmultiplex closure and team effectiveness ismore strongly peaked in its inverted-U shape.Furthermore, instead of a positive linear trend,


as with simplex ties, the maximum benefit formultiplex ties occurs at more moderate levels ofclosure, resulting in little to no positive lineartrend. Thus, we propose an alternative to thetypically expected linear relationship betweenteam process interactions and teameffectiveness.

Proposition 1: For simplex taskworkand teamwork ties, closure has apositive linear trend and a negativecurvilinear relationship with teameffectiveness. For multiplex task-work-teamwork ties, closure has lit-tle to no positive linear trend and asignificantly more negative curvilin-ear relationship with team effective-ness (i.e., the positive and negativeslopes are steeper).

Centralization relationships with team effec-tiveness. Centralization within team networksrefers to the relative concentration of interactionaround one or a few core members while moreperipheral members remain more disconnected(Freeman, 1979; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Thecentralization of taskwork and teamwork net-works is important to consider for team effec-tiveness not only because it accounts for addi-tional dynamics that are difficult to observe intraditional conceptualizations of team processbut also because these dynamics are distinctfrom those of closure, described above (e.g.,teams with the same levels of closure may havenear total centralization or complete decentral-ization). As in our earlier discussion, relation-ships of centralization of team processes withteam effectiveness are complicated becausethis configuration, too, involves trade-offs. AsHollenbeck et al. have noted (2011: 65), formaltheories and empirical evidence suggest thatthere is no one best structure in terms of central-ization versus decentralization, and one can findboth conceptual justification and empirical datasuggesting that each alternative has its own setof virtues and liabilities (Burns & Stalker, 1961;Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985; Hollenbeck et al.,2002; Pennings, 1992). We argue here that a con-figural approach to team processes can advanceour understanding beyond this general ideathat there are trade-offs.

Centralized taskwork can be beneficial forteam effectiveness. The reason is that, in gen-eral, it is an efficient means of channeling infor-

mation throughout a collective (Leavitt, 1951;Shaw, 1964). This efficiency comes about be-cause a central actor can have a better overallunderstanding of the entire task environment,can coordinate to avoid redundancy in actionsand potential cannibalization of efforts wherethe decisions of one team member underminethose of another, and can serve as a vehicleensuring that best practices are rapidly diffusedthroughout the team (Hollenbeck et al., 2011).Centralized taskwork structures also tend to re-duce decision-making errors, since courses ofaction proposed from the periphery generallyhave to be reviewed and approved by a centralactor prior to execution. Such a second look in-creases the likelihood that teams can preventmishandling of routine matters, especially if thecentral actor has more experience, knowledge,or expertise relative to the peripheral members(Hollenbeck et al., 2011).

It is also clear, however, that centralized task-work structures create peripheral member de-pendence, which reduces both these members’possibilities for action and their willingness toperform at optimum levels (Shaw, 1964). In acentralized group, peripheral members readilyperceive that the central person is autonomousand controls the group with respect to task-focused contributions and interactions. This re-duces peripheral members’ satisfaction and mo-tivation by inhibiting the gratification ofculturally supported needs for autonomy, recog-nition, and achievement (Shaw, 1964). By creat-ing a high number of communication channelsfor the central position and limiting alternativechannels of information flow between periph-eral actors, centralization also increases the riskthat the central individual becomes saturatedwith information requests and communicationresponsibilities that could be more effectivelyshared by the whole team (Shaw, 1964). Further-more, overwhelmed central individuals areprone to distort information they pass on, even ifit is not their intention to do so (Balkundi et al.,2009; Brass, Butterfield, & Skaggs, 1998). Crossand Parker’s (2004) case study showed that acentral broker who spanned disconnected pe-ripheral team members became overwhelmedby the coordination task, producing bottlenecksin the flow of communication and harming theteam. Paradoxically, instead of increasingshared understanding of the team’s work prob-lems, central actors may actually amplify the


differences between the peripheral actors theybridge (Balkundi et al., 2009).

Although prior research has been unable towholly reconcile these trade-offs of centraliza-tion (Zhang & Peterson, 2011), a solution be-comes possible once taskwork and teamworknetworks are considered together. Specifically,there are good reasons to believe that the liabil-ities of taskwork centralization can be amelio-rated by the virtues of teamwork decentraliza-tion. When taskwork is centralized for itsefficiency advantages, the corresponding draw-backs of dependence, saturation, and informa-tion distortion can be reduced through the use ofa simultaneous decentralized teamwork net-work. The decentralized teamwork structure pro-vides members with flexibility to monitor eachother’s progress, coordinate, and motivate with-out having to communicate these activitiesthrough a central actor. When examining teamswith centralized versus decentralized taskworkstructures, for example, Hollenbeck et al. notedthat “in order to be effective, all the teams had tobalance the workload in real time” (2011: 69).Informal communication among memberswas not constrained, they were able to warneach other of threats headed their way, and theywere able to “hand off” resources that movedfrom one member’s area to another. As a result,teams with a centralized taskwork structure per-formed well when they used a decentralizedstructure to engage in teamwork.

In sum, we argue that as team taskwork cen-tralization increases, team effectiveness will begreatest for teams that enact decentralizedteamwork. This is because team member depen-dence, saturation, and information distortion,which are characteristics of centralized task-work networks, can be ameliorated through theflexibility, autonomy, and adaptability of a cor-responding decentralized teamwork network. Atthe same time, teams with highly centralizedtaskwork and overlapping centralized team-work (multiplex centralization) will be least ef-fective, because the costs of centralization de-scribed earlier will be compounded, without anyof the compensating benefits of decentralization.

Proposition 2: Centralization of task-work will be associated with higherteam effectiveness when paired withdecentralized teamwork. Centraliza-tion of multiplex taskwork-teamwork

ties will be negatively related to teameffectiveness.

Subgroup relationships with team effective-ness. Subgrouping within team networks refersto increased concentration of connection amongsubsets of members along with decreased con-centration of connection between subsets(Knoke & Yang, 2008; Wasserman & Faust, 1994).Subgroups represent important patterns of task-work and teamwork interaction because theydeal with efficiencies that are gained by subdi-vision and specialization of work tasks, as wellas obstacles to communication and the transferof resources in the team (Scott, 2000). Further-more, as in the case of centralization, these dy-namics are difficult to account for in traditionalconceptualizations of team process, and theymay also be independent from configural pat-terns of closure and centralization (e.g., teamswith similar levels of closure or centralizationmay have clear subgroups or none at all; Read &Wilson, 1998).

Cohesive subgroups are theoretically impor-tant because social forces operate through di-rect contact among subgroup members, throughindirect contact transmitted via intermediaries,or through the relative cohesion within as com-pared to outside the subgroup (Wasserman &Faust, 1994: 251). As a result, greater homogene-ity tends to develop among persons who haverelatively frequent face-to-face contact or whoare connected through intermediaries, and lesshomogeneity tends to develop among personswho have less frequent contact (Friedkin, 1984;McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). In addi-tion, persons who are in positions to broker be-tween competing factions can be viewed as be-ing located either in enviable positions of power(Burt, 1992) or, conversely, in unfortunate posi-tions of behavioral constraint (Krackhardt, 1999).Recent theory suggests that subgroups form ondifferent bases, whether identity-based sub-groups driven by social identity processes,resource-based subgroups driven by socialdominance processes, or knowledge-based sub-groups driven by information-processing pro-cesses (Carton & Cummings, 2012). Our focus ison knowledge-based subgroups, which, appliedto our framework, are taskwork subgroupsbased on joint task involvement correspondingto member differences in knowledge, expertise,or function. Such teams are often designed with


such specialization in mind in order to capital-ize on unique team member expertise (Carton &Cummings, 2012; van Knippenberg, De Dreu, &Homan, 2004).

Subgroups have a positive impact becausethey are designed to take advantage of efficien-cies associated with team member specializa-tion (Burns & Stalker, 1961). Subgroups of taskspecialists are also beneficial because mem-bers function as supportive cohorts—they sharecommon experience, language, cues, and sym-bols and engage in richer debate and informa-tion exchange (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003). Sub-groups may provide the psychological supportnecessary for team members to actively pursueand express their points of view (Asch, 1952). Inaddition, the presence of distinct bases ofknowledge, experience, and information be-tween subgroups of specialists can spur teamsto consider and benefit from alternative sourcesof knowledge (Carton & Cummings, 2012; Man-nix & Neale, 2005; Reagans & Zuckerman, 2001;Reagans, Zuckerman, & McEvily, 2004). Thus, thedivision of labor into knowledge-based sub-groups can benefit teams by allowing them totake advantage of unique members’ specializedexpertise, by providing subgroup members withsupportive cohorts of individuals with whomthey can experiment and test new ideas beforerisking them to the whole group, and by givingteams alternative pools from which to draw di-verse and nonredundant information.

Differentiation into subgroups can also createproblems for teams in terms of their ability tointegrate diverse knowledge so that it becomesactionable and useful (Carton & Cummings,2012). The existence of separate “thoughtworlds” in the same team can result in differingmental models and a failure to converge on acommon set of assumptions about the problemsthe whole team faces or a shared interpretationabout how they should go about solving theseproblems (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse,1993; Dougherty, 1992; Mathieu, Goodwin, Heff-ner, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000; Okhuysen &Bechky, 2009). Furthermore, positive ingroup bi-ases and negative outgroup biases generatedin the presence of tightly knit subgroups maylimit the absorption and elaboration of alter-native information generated external to thesubgroup (Oh et al., 2006; Tajfel & Turner, 1986).Group faultlines research suggests that whensubgroups are particularly strong, subgroup

members may develop an “us versus them”mentality, and cross-group interactions andcommunications are more likely to be perceivedas interfering, particularly if between-subgroupperceptions are negative (Lau & Murnighan,1998, 2005). Cross-subgroup information ex-changes that would otherwise be perceived ashelpful feedback or constructive criticism, forinstance, might be seen instead as an attack(Bartel, 2001). Such perceived threats can thenaccentuate subgroup boundaries, biases, anddifferentiation, further eroding a group’s pro-cesses and performance. Ingroup biases alsoincrease the probability that subgroups focus oningroup goals at the expense of superordinategoals and can lead to negative stereotyping ofother groups, which becomes a justification formaintaining social distance and secrecy (Ash-forth & Mael, 1989; Davison et al., 2012).

A solution to the seemingly irreconcilabletrade-offs involved in taskwork subgrouping be-comes possible by considering a separate team-work network as a means by which to enjoysubgrouping’s advantages while minimizing itsdrawbacks. Research on team boundary span-ning indicates that successful teams pay atten-tion to managing activities both within andacross team boundaries (Ancona, 1990; Ancona& Caldwell, 1992). According to this perspective,teams are most successful not only when coor-dinating activities within the team but alsowhen directing significant attention to the pat-tern of external activities in pursuit of outsidefeedback, support, resources, and negotiation.When applied to the subgroup level, teams thatdifferentiate into subgroups will need teammembers to adopt integrating roles in order tobe effective (Davison et al., 2012; Oh et al., 2006).

One way that teams manage taskwork sub-group boundaries is by encouraging team mem-bers to form teamwork ties with members ofother taskwork subgroups. Given limited time,attention, and resources, integrators need to de-velop ties between subgroups in the most effec-tive way because all the members of each sub-group cannot develop and maintain teamworkties with all the members of every other sub-group. Doing so would negate the efficiency de-sired by subdividing taskwork in the first place.Moreover, forming teamwork ties across sub-groups imposes additional demands on integra-tors/liaisons above and beyond their own task-work. Boundary spanning across subgroups is


challenging and stressful for individuals, re-quiring considerable effort and time (Aldrich &Herker, 1977; Marrone, Tesluk, & Carson, 2007).Ancona and Caldwell noted in their qualitativefindings that, in the eyes of one team leader,although each member of a particular groupcould go out and coordinate his or her part of theproject, this was not thought to be a good idea:“You need to know where to go, who to see, howto talk to them, and not everyone can do that.Besides, some design engineers work betterwith uninterrupted time, so specialized liaisonactivity was organized” (1992: 646).

Research on multiteam systems suggests thatcross-subgroup team liaison activity is most ef-fective when carried out not by all team mem-bers, nor by a sole team member, but by a lim-ited number of integrators suited to the role(Davison et al., 2012; Marrone et al., 2007). Thus,teams that seek to have a moderate level ofteamwork ties between at least one member ofeach subgroup will be most successful (Krack-hardt & Brass, 1994; Oh et al., 2006). This willallow the teams to quickly access and integrateinformation and resources in the various task-work subgroups without being overwhelmedwith the demands of managing excessive cross-subgroup relationships. If an integrator hasmany ties with people in only one or two sub-groups, members of disconnected subgroupsmay be dissatisfied (Krackhardt & Brass, 1994).The fragmented group can suffer from a lack ofcommunication and increasing conflict, result-ing in lower group performance. Instead, an in-tegrator’s ability to maintain a strong relation-ship with at least one member of each subgroupwill enhance overall group effectiveness (Oh etal., 2006).

Proposition 3: Subgrouping of taskworkwill be associated with higher team ef-fectiveness when paired with a moder-ate level of cross-subgroup teamworkties. Subgrouping of multiplex task-work-teamwork ties will be negativelyrelated to team effectiveness.

Task complexity as a moderator. Although ourpropositions are already fairly involved, the re-lationships are further complicated by task com-plexity, which refers to the level and complexityof the information-processing requirements forsuccessful task completion (Gladstein, 1984).Simple task environments are static, routine,

and certain, with loose coupling and minimaltemporal pacing or entrainment requirements.Such tasks require minimal collaboration andinformation processing within and among teammembers. In contrast, complex task environ-ments are dynamic, nonroutine, and uncertain,with tight coupling and demanding temporalpacing and high entrainment. Such tasks aremore challenging to coordinate, with greaterlevels of synchronized collaboration and infor-mation sharing required among team members(Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Kozlowski et al., 1999;Tushman, 1977). Because teamwork functions asan integrative mechanism (Marks et al., 2001),the importance of integrative efforts depends onthe complexity of the team task (Gladstein, 1984;Kozlowski et al., 1999). Integrative interactionpatterns have been associated with higher per-formance in more complex, uncertain, andnonroutine task settings, whereas they havebeen associated with decreased performance insimple, stable, and routine task settings (Tush-man, 1977). As a result, we expect that taskworkand teamwork configuration relationships withteam effectiveness, particularly those involvingmultiplex taskwork-teamwork ties, will vary de-pending on the configuration’s alignment withthe information-processing requirements of theteam’s task.

As previously discussed, the benefits of mul-tiplex closure include coordination, trust, andmember interest alignment, while drawbacksinclude reduced autonomy and increased com-munication burdens. Increased information-processing requirements, tighter coupling, andincreased temporal entrainment associatedwith task complexity put a premium on obtain-ing the benefits of closure, despite its costs.With complex tasks, teams have a greater needto develop appropriate strategies and contin-gency plans, to synchronize and monitor workeffort, and to manage pressures and conflictsthat can erode motivation and morale (Marks etal., 2001). The resulting benefits of these team-work interactions for team effectiveness aremuch greater relative to their costs in terms ofeffort, time, and attention. As a result, whentasks are complex, teams can continue to enjoygains at higher and higher levels of multiplextaskwork-teamwork closure.

In contrast, when tasks are simple andstraightforward, teams have much less need toplan and strategize, they have much less to co-


ordinate, and they have fewer pressures andconflicts to manage. As a result, integrativeteamwork interaction has much less of a role,and time and effort spent in these interactionsmay simply be wasted and result in memberfrustration because attention is directed awayfrom productive work on the task (Hackman,Brousseau, & Weiss, 1976). Thus, when tasks aresimple, teams begin to suffer losses from multi-plex taskwork-teamwork closure at much lowerlevels. In terms of moderating the curvilinearrelationship of multiplex closure with team ef-fectiveness, we expect the peak of the proposedcurve to shift as task complexity increases.When tasks are simple and the costs of multi-plex closure quickly outweigh the benefits, thepeak of the curve shifts left (observed as a sig-nificant negative linear trend accompanying thenegative curvilinear relationship). When tasksare complex and benefits continue to outweighcosts, the peak of the curve shifts right (observedas a significant positive linear trend accompa-nying the negative curvilinear relationship).

Proposition 4: Task complexity moder-ates the curvilinear relationship be-tween multiplex taskwork-teamworkclosure and team effectiveness. Forsimple tasks, the negative curvilinearrelationship is accompanied by a neg-ative linear trend reflecting morequickly decreasing returns to in-creased multiplexity. For complextasks, the negative curvilinear rela-tionship is accompanied by a positivelinear trend reflecting more prolongedreturns to increased multiplexity.

In terms of centralization, advantages involveefficient channeling of information, avoided re-dundancy of effort, and reduced errors in deci-sion making. Drawbacks include peripheralmember dependence and demotivation, as wellas potential saturation of and information dis-tortion by a central actor. As tasks become morecomplex, the decision-making environment be-comes more dynamic and information-process-ing requirements become greater. In this com-plex task environment centralized networksaturation is much more likely to overwhelmexpected efficiencies not only because the com-munication demands upon a central person aregreater but also because the individual’s owntask requirements are more demanding (Shaw,

1964). In contrast, with simple tasks, informa-tion-processing demands decrease and the de-cision-making environment is more stable. Asthe central person’s task and communication de-mands are reduced, concerns over saturationand information distortion are minimized. In anexperiment with a simple problem-solving task,Leavitt (1951) showed that communication net-works constrained to have high centralizationresulted in faster task completion. Thus, sim-plicity and stability in the task environmentmake it more likely that the efficiency benefitsof centralized taskwork-teamwork ties persist,whereas complexity makes it more likely thatthese benefits are overtaken by saturation, bot-tlenecks, and information distortion.

Proposition 5: Task complexity moder-ates the relationship between multi-plex taskwork-teamwork centraliza-tion and team effectiveness. In simpletask environments multiplex central-ization will be more positively relatedto team effectiveness. In complex en-vironments multiplex centralizationwill be more negatively related toteam effectiveness.

Finally, in terms of subgrouping, previouslydiscussed advantages involve efficiency associ-ated with specialization and support, whiledrawbacks involve difficulties with integrationand mental model convergence. Complex taskenvironments place a premium on integrativestructures that allow teams to access and inte-grate diverse pools of information locatedwithin subgroups of specialists (Hansen, 1999;Reagans & Zuckerman, 2001; Reagans et al.,2004). With complex tasks, any gains of effi-ciency from focusing teamwork within special-ized taskwork subgroups can be quickly over-come by failures to synchronize and combinethe subcomponent work and information gener-ated within those subgroups. Simple tasks, incontrast, allow multiplex taskwork-teamworksubgroups to operate relatively efficiently andindependently because there is less need to in-tegrate and coordinate between subgroups.Team members conserve energy and attentionby focusing their teamwork interaction within ataskwork subgroup, rather than between them.

Proposition 6: Task complexity moder-ates the relationship between multi-


plex taskwork-teamwork subgroupingand team effectiveness. In simple taskenvironments multiplex subgroupingwill be more positively related to teameffectiveness. In complex task envi-ronments multiplex subgrouping willbe more negatively related to teameffectiveness.

DISCUSSION

Consistent with Carton and Cummings’s(2012) imperative call for researchers to considerthe structure and content of interaction within aunified theory, we assert that scholars shouldconsider closure, centralization, and subgroup-ing configurations of taskwork, teamwork, andmultiplex taskwork-teamwork ties in studies ofteam effectiveness. Below we discuss implica-tions of this perspective for future research andpractice.

Team Network Configurations in Future TeamEffectiveness Research

The theory we present in this manuscript chal-lenges researchers to take more varied and nu-anced positions in hypothesizing relationshipsamong team processes and team effectiveness.Indeed, as teams become increasingly complex,dynamic, and dispersed (Tannenbaum, Mathieu,Salas, & Cohen, 2012), our explanations of teameffectiveness need to evolve and adapt to ac-count for this complexity (DeCostanza, DiRosa,Rogers, Slaughter, & Estrada, 2012). Previous re-search has provided a great deal of insight re-garding our understanding of team effective-ness (LePine et al., 2008). However, teamsinvolve uneven member contributions, as wellas nonredundant perceptions and motivations,making it difficult to understand team function-ing through traditional assumptions of uniformityand corresponding linear aggregations (Mathieuet al., 2008; Murase, Doty, Wax, DeChurch, & Con-tractor, 2012).

Reconciling trade-offs. By considering config-urations of taskwork and teamwork closure, cen-tralization, and subgrouping, it becomes possi-ble to reconcile the varying and sometimesopposing mechanisms through which team pro-cess interaction influences team effectiveness.For example, we have suggested that closureincreases team effectiveness through increased

trust, member interest alignment, and reducedopportunism. Yet these benefits are balancedagainst increasing drawbacks in the form ofcommunication burdens, reduced autonomy,and reduced innovativeness. Centralization islinked to team effectiveness through efficientdispersion of information, reduced duplicationof effort, and increased accuracy in decisionmaking, yet these effects can be limited by in-creased dependence and demotivation of pe-ripheral members, as well as information distor-tion, whether intentional or accidental, byoverwhelmed central members. Finally, sub-grouping can be associated with greater teameffectiveness through efficiencies gained byspecialization and rich information exchange insupportive cohorts. However, supportive sub-groups can limit effectiveness through ingroupbiases that inhibit cross-subgroup integrationand mental model convergence. Beyond sug-gesting that teams encounter trade-offs in con-figurations of taskwork and teamwork, our per-spective allows researchers to consider howdisadvantages associated with centralization orsubgrouping of a taskwork network can be com-pensated for by the advantages of decentraliza-tion or cross-subgroup integration of a team-work network. In sum, by considering thesimultaneous opposing effects of these mecha-nisms, as well as how they can be reconciled inexaminations of team process interaction andteam effectiveness, we can gain a more com-plete understanding of why teams succeedor fail.

Integrating structural elements. We recognizethat implementing the approach advanced hereimposes new challenges for scholars in terms ofdata gathering, operationalization of variables,and complex analyses involving altogether newtools. However, we are not advocating complex-ity just for complexity’s sake. Rather, we believethe approach will inspire scholars to think dif-ferently about team processes, with the resultbeing explanations of team functioning and ef-fectiveness that are more integrative and com-plete. Beyond direct tests of our propositions, forexample, scholars can examine effects of clo-sure, centralization, and subgrouping together,as opposed to in isolation, as in previous re-search (e.g., Balkundi & Harrison, 2006; Hollen-beck et al., 2011; Lau & Murnighan, 2005; Leavitt,1951; Marks, DeChurch, Mathieu, Panzer, &Alonso, 2005). Such an approach is consistent


with our theorizing insofar as these configuralconcepts are functionally distinct, and it is con-sistent with empirical research demonstratingthat these configural concepts are largely uncor-related (Read & Wilson, 1998; Sparrowe et al.,2001; Zhang & Peterson, 2011). Including multipleconfigural predictors may be particularly usefulin helping us understand which aspects of struc-ture are most and least important. The few stud-ies that have examined closure and centraliza-tion in tandem (e.g., Balkundi et al., 2009;Cummings & Cross, 2003; Sparrowe et al., 2001;Zhang & Peterson, 2011) have demonstratedpromise for this approach.

Unpacking teamwork interactions. In this ar-ticle we have considered teamwork as a unifiedrelation because meta-analytic evidence sug-gests that Marks et al.’s (2001) teamwork processdimensions load on a single higher-order over-all teamwork quality factor (LePine et al., 2008).However, the underlying process dimensionsrepresent conceptually distinct content, andwhen considered in an “unpacked” fashion, theymay yield predictions that vary from what wehave proposed here. For example, whereas itmight be detrimental to centralize helping andbackup behavior because no one team membercan be available to assist all others while simul-taneously accomplishing his or her own work(e.g., Barnes et al., 2008), effects may be some-what different for centralization of motivationand confidence building. Indeed, under certaincircumstances one highly enthusiastic cheer-leader or motivator may be sufficient to influ-ence the morale and “mood” of the team.1 Insum, our understanding of teams will benefitfrom convergent validity tests of process dimen-sion networks and from an examination of theirstructures’ possibilities for varied prediction ofteam effectiveness.

Shared and configural constructs as comple-ments. We note that our configural approachis not intended to replace what we have learnedfrom the traditional approach to team processes;rather, it builds on and complements it. The twoapproaches are based on different assumptionsregarding collective construct emergence, and,accordingly, their resulting operationalizationsreflect different types of collective constructs.

Research on informant accuracy suggests thatshared perceptions of team properties and theircorresponding structural configurations are notnecessarily related (Bernard, Killworth, Kronen-feld, & Sailer, 1984). Because these are distinctconcepts, researchers have an opportunity totest their relative and incremental validities forpredicting team effectiveness. Moreover, schol-ars could develop and examine substantive the-ory that included both configural patterns andshared perceptions of team process. It may be,for example, that the influence of team processclosure or centralization on team effectivenessis mediated in part by the team’s shared percep-tions of the general extent to which team pro-cesses occur. Such a theory could be groundedin the idea that effective team interaction sig-nals to members that the team is functioningwell, thereby motivating members to focus en-ergy on team ends. In sum, explanations of teameffectiveness can improve as researchers con-sider whether the team perception of processand the structural patterns of team member in-teractions independently and jointly explainteam effectiveness beyond the explanation of-fered by either in isolation.

Managing Team Network Configurations toEnhance Team Effectiveness

Finally, we comment on how a manager whodepends on team members for output—or howteam members themselves—can use an under-standing of configurations to organize taskworkand teamwork in a way that fosters team effec-tiveness. First, although conventional wisdommight suggest that team members should worktogether to the greatest extent possible on alltasks, excessive teamwork imposes communica-tion burdens that may distract members fromaccomplishing tasks. It also reduces autonomyand freedom, which may result in reduced teaminnovation. Accordingly, a team manager orteam members may choose to limit teamworkinteraction to more moderate levels in order tomaintain coordination but preserve autonomy.Of course, our theory also suggests that the de-cision to purposely limit teamwork requires con-sideration of the complexity of the task at hand.With very simple tasks, reducing the emphasison teamwork may be particularly beneficial.However, as the level of complexity increases,there may be benefits to dedicating significant

1 We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this pointto our attention.


time and attention to integrative teamwork in-teraction. Thus, to the extent that teams are in-volved with different tasks that vary with re-spect to their complexity, teamwork trainingcould emphasize when to engage in teamwork,rather than just how.

Along the same lines, training efforts couldfocus on with whom to interact. For example,teams that aim to achieve efficiency throughcentralized taskwork could end up with over-whelmed central members and unmotivated pe-ripheral members. Application of our theorysuggests that these problems could be amelio-rated with training encouraging peripheralmembers to informally coordinate, seek helpand assistance, and encourage each other with-out communicating through the central actor.Teams that do so could more effectively balanceworkloads, reduce the likelihood of bottlenecks,and facilitate mutual performance monitoringand error detection (Kozlowski et al., 1999). Theseeffects, again, are likely to be contingent on thecomplexity of the team’s task situation. In verysimple tasks where central actors have suffi-cient time to process information from each pe-ripheral member separately, the central actorwill not likely become saturated, and there willbe less need to offload informal coordinationcapability (Kozlowski et al., 1999). However, withvery complex tasks, team members must realizethat the likelihood of centralized actor satura-tion is very high. Thus, they should avoid suchproblems in the first place by distributing task-work in a more decentralized fashion.

As another example, teams that subdividetaskwork with the hope of achieving efficiencygains through specialization, but that also real-ize that doing so will increase their likelihood ofencountering integration difficulties and diver-gence in mental models, may overcome thesechallenges by assigning capable members ascross-subgroup liaisons who regularly crosssubgroup boundaries to discuss plans, trackprogress, and manage conflicts between sub-groups (Davison et al., 2012). Whether such chal-lenges exist depend, as discussed, on the com-plexity of the task situation. Simple tasksituations may allow teams to be successfulwith liaisons engaging in very minimal bound-ary-spanning activity, whereas complex tasksituations may allow teams to be successfulonly when liaisons engage in very extensiveboundary-spanning activity.

It is important to note that a team’s ability torevise and reconfigure its patterns of task andteamwork interaction presupposes the team’sability to understand its current configurations(Kozlowski et al., 1999). Research using socio-metric badge data has shown that teams caninstantly diagnose their patterns of interactionwhen presented with visual maps of their com-munication (Pentland, 2012). Further, this re-search has shown that managers can use suchvisualizations as a training tool to help teamsquickly improve their patterns of interaction andresulting team performance, and much of thisimprovement occurs without making anychanges in team membership. Thus, helpingteam members understand and alter their con-figurations of teamwork and taskwork is a pow-erful way that managers can help teams enjoythe benefits while avoiding the pitfalls of com-plex team interactions.

REFERENCES

Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. 1977. Boundary spanning roles andorganization structure. Academy of Management Re-view, 2: 217–230.

Ancona, D. G. 1990. Outward bound: Strategic for team sur-vival in an organization. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 33: 334–365.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Bridging the boundary:External activity and performance in organizationalteams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 634–665.

Asch, S. E. 1952. Group forces in the modification and distor-tion of judgments. In S. E. Asch (Ed.), Social psychology:450–501. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and theorganization. Academy of Management Review, 14: 20–39.

Balkundi, P., Barsness, Z., & Michael, J. H. 2009. Unlocking theinfluence of leadership network structures on team con-flict and viability. Small Group Research, 40: 301–322.

Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. 2006. Ties, leaders, and time inteams: Strong inference about network structure’s ef-fects on team viability and performance. Academy ofManagement Journal, 49: 49–68.

Balkundi, P., Kilduff, M., Barsness, Z. I., & Michael, J. H. 2007.Demographic antecedents and performance conse-quences of structural holes in work teams. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 28: 241–260.

Barnes, C. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wagner, D. T., DeRue, D. S.,Nahrgang, J. D., & Schwind, K. M. 2008. Harmful help: Thecosts of backing-up behavior in teams. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 93: 529–539.

Bartel, C. A. 2001. Social comparisons in boundary-spanningwork: Effects of community outreach on members’ orga-


nizational identity and identification. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 46: 379–414.

Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T., & Taber, T. D. 1976. Relationship ofstress to individually and organizationally valuedstates: Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 61: 41–47.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2002. A typology of virtualteams. Group & Organization Management, 27: 14–49.

Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P., Kronenfeld, D., & Sailer, L. 1984.The problem of informant accuracy: The validity of ret-rospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13:495–517.

Bowers, C. A., Braun, C. C., & Morgan, B. B., Jr.. 1997. Teamworkload: Its meaning and measurement. In M. T. Bran-nick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance andmeasurement: Theory, methods, and applications: 85–108. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. 1998. Relation-ships and unethical behavior: A social network perspec-tive. Academy of Management Review, 23: 14–31.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innova-tion. London: Tavistock.

Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of com-petition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burt, R. S., & Schøtt, T. 1985. Relation contents in multiplenetworks. Social Science Research, 14: 287–308.

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. 1993. Relationsbetween work group characteristics and effectiveness:Implications for designing effective work groups. Per-sonnel Psychology, 46: 823–850.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. 1993.Shared mental models in expert decision making teams.In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Current issues in individualand group decision making: 221–246. Hillsdale, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates.

Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. 2012. A theory of subgroupsin work teams. Academy of Management Review, 37:441–470.

Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of humancapital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement):S95–S120.

Cross, R., & Parker, A. 2004. The hidden power of socialnetworks: Understanding how work really gets done inorganizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Cummings, J. N., & Cross, R. 2003. Structural properties ofwork groups and their consequences for performance.Social Networks, 25: 197–210.

Davison, R. B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Barnes, C. M., Sleesman,D. J., & Ilgen, D. R. 2012. Coordinated action in multiteamsystems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 808–824.

DeCostanza, A. H., DiRosa, G. A., Rogers, S. E., Slaughter,A. J., & Estrada, A. X. 2012. Researching teams: Nothing’sgoing to change our world. Industrial and Organiza-tional Psychology, 5: 36–39.

Dougherty, D. 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful prod-uct innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3:179–202.

Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1985. Alternative forms of fit incontingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly,30: 514–539.

Freeman, L. C. 1979. Centrality in social networks conceptualclarification. Social Networks, 1: 215–239.

Friedkin, N. E. 1984. Structural cohesion and equivalenceexplanations of social homogeneity. Sociological Meth-ods and Research, 12: 235–261.

Gibson, C., & Vermeulen, F. 2003. A healthy divide: Sub-groups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Ad-ministrative Science Quarterly, 48: 202–239.

Gladstein, D. L. 1984. Groups in context: A model of taskgroup effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,29: 499–517.

Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 78: 1360–1380.

Granovetter, M. S. 2005. The impact of social structure oneconomic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives,19(1): 33–50.

Hackman, J. R., Brousseau, K. R., & Weiss, J. A. 1976. Theinteraction of task design and group performance strat-egies in determining group effectiveness. Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 350–365.

Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role ofweak ties in sharing knowledge across organizationsubunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 82–111.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Ellis, A. P. J., Humphrey, S. E., Garza,A. S., & Ilgen, D. R. 2011. Asymmetry in structuraladaptation: The differential impact of centralizingversus decentralizing team decision-making struc-tures. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 114: 64 –74.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Moon, H., Ellis, A. P. J., West, B. J., Ilgen,D. R., Sheppard, L., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Wagner, J. A., III.2002. Structural contingency theory and individual dif-ferences: Examination of external and internal person-team fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 599–606.

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. 2005.Teams in organizations: From input-process-outputmodels to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology,56: 517–543.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organi-zations. New York: Wiley.

Knoke, D., & Yang, S. 2008. Social network analysis (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S., Nason, E., & Smith, E. 1999.Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilationand performance across levels and time. In D. R. Ilgen& E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of workperformance: Implications for staffing, personnel ac-tions, and development: 240 –292. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel ap-proach to theory and research in organizations: Con-


textual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J.Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,research, and methods in organizations: Foundations,extensions, and new directions: 3–90. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Krackhardt, D. 1999. The ties that torture: Simmelian tie anal-ysis in organizations. Research in the Sociology of Or-ganizations, 16: 183–210.

Krackhardt, D., & Brass, D. J. 1994. Intraorganizational net-works: The micro side. In S. Wasserman & J. Galaskie-wicz (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis: Re-search in the social and behavioral sciences: 207–229.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. 1998. Demographic diversityand faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organi-zational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23:325–340.

Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. 2005. Interactions within groupsand subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines.Academy of Management Journal, 48: 645–659.

Leavitt, H. J. 1951. Some effects of certain communicationpatterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, 46: 38–50.

LePine, J. A. 2003. Team adaptation and postchange perfor-mance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’cognitive ability and personality. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88: 27–39.

LePine, J. A. 2005. Adaptation of teams in response to unfore-seen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team compo-sition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1153–1167.

LePine, J. A., Hanson, M. A., Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J.2000. Contextual performance and teamwork: Implica-tions for staffing. Research in Personnel and HumanResources Management, 19: 53–90.

LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., &Saul, J. R. 2008. A meta-analysis of teamwork processes:Tests of a multidimensional model and relationshipswith team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology,61: 273–307.

Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. 2005. What differences make adifference? Psychological Science in the Public Interest,6: 31–55.

Markovsky, B., & Chaffee, M. 1995. Social identification andsolidarity: A reformulation. Advances in Group Pro-cesses, 12: 249–270.

Markovsky, B., & Lawler, E. J. 1994. A new theory of groupsolidarity. Advances in Group Processes, 11: 113–137.

Marks, M. A., DeChurch, L. A., Mathieu, J. E., Panzer, F. J., &Alonso, A. 2005. Teamwork in multiteam systems. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 90: 964–971.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. A temporallybased framework and taxonomy of team processes.Academy of Management Review, 26: 356–376.

Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. 2007. A multilevelinvestigation of antecedents and consequences of team

member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy ofManagement Journal, 50: 1423–1439.

Mathieu, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Heffner, T. S., Salas, E., &Cannon-Bowers, J. A. 2000. The influence of shared men-tal models on team process and performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 85: 273–283.

Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. 2008.Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent ad-vancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal ofManagement, 34: 410–476.

McGrath, J. E. 1991. Time, interaction, and performance (TIP).Small Group Research, 22: 147–174.

McGrath, J. E. 1997. Small group research, that once andfuture field: An interpretation of the past with an eye tothe future. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Prac-tice, 1: 7–27.

McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. 2000. The study ofgroups: Past, present, and future. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 4: 95–105.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. 2001. Birds of afeather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Reviewof Sociology, 27: 415–444.

Mehra, A., Dixon, A. L., Brass, D. J., & Robertson, B. 2006. Thesocial network ties of group leaders: Implications forgroup performance and leader reputation. OrganizationScience, 17: 64–79.

Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. 1999. The structure andfunction of collective constructs: Implications for multi-level research and theory development. Academy ofManagement Review, 24: 249–265.

Murase, T., Doty, D., Wax, A., DeChurch, L. A., & Contractor,N. S. 2012. Teams are changing: Time to “think net-works.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5: 41–44.

Obstfeld, D. 2005. Social networks, the tertius iungens orien-tation, and involvement in innovation. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 50: 100–130.

Oh, H., Chung, M., & Labianca, G. 2004. Group social capitaland group effectiveness: The role of informal socializingties. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 860–875.

Oh, H., Labianca, G., & Chung, M. 2006. A multilevel model ofgroup social capital. Academy of Management Review,31: 569–582.

Okhuysen, G. A., & Bechky, B. A. 2009. Coordination in orga-nizations: An integrative perspective. Academy of Man-agement Annals, 3: 463–502.

Pennings, J. M. 1992. Structural contingency theory: A re-appraisal. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14: 267–309.

Pentland, A. S. 2012. The new science of building greatteams. Harvard Business Review, 90(4): 1–11.

Read, R. C., & Wilson, R. J. 1998. An atlas of graphs. New York:Oxford University Press.

Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. 2001. Networks, diversity,and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&Dteams. Organization Science, 12: 502–517.


Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., & McEvily, B. 2004. How to makethe team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria fordesigning effective teams. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 49: 101–133.

Scott, J. 2000. Social network analysis: A handbook. Thou-sands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shaw, M. E. 1964. Communication networks. Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, 1: 111–147.

Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L.2001. Social networks and the performance of individu-als and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44:316–325.

Stewart, G. L., Fulmer, I. S., & Barrick, M. R. 2005. An explo-ration of member roles as a multilevel linking mecha-nism for individual traits and team outcomes. PersonnelPsychology, 58: 343–365.

Stogdill, R. M. 1959. Individual behavior and group achieve-ment. A theory: The experimental evidence. New York:Oxford University Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity theory ofintergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),

Psychology of intergroup relations: 7–24. Chicago: Nel-son-Hall.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. 2012.Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolv-ing fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychol-ogy, 5: 2–24.

Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Tushman, M. L. 1977. Special boundary roles in the innovationprocess. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 587–605.

van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. 2004.Work group diversity and group performance: An inte-grative model and research agenda. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 89: 1008–1022.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. 1994. Social network analysis:Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Zhang, Z., & Peterson, S. J. 2011. Advice networks in teams:The role of transformational leadership and members’core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96:1004–1017.

Eean R. Crawford ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of manage-ment and organizations at the Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa. Hereceived his Ph.D. in management from the University of Florida. He conducts re-search on team effectiveness, networks, employee engagement, and personality.

Jeffery A. LePine ([email protected]) is the PetSmart Chair in Leadership at the W.P.Cary School of Business, Arizona State University. He received his Ph.D. in organiza-tional behavior from Michigan State University. His research interests include teamfunctioning and effectiveness, team composition, adaptability, occupational stress,and employee engagement.


32.full

Documents

Transcript of 32.full