2007, Vol. 50, No. 1, 25–32.

SUMMARY—Teams of people working together for a common purpose have been a centerpiece of human social organization ever since our ancient ancestors first banded together to hunt game, raise families, and defend their communities. Human history is largely a story of people working together in groups to explore, achieve, and conquer. Yet, the modern concept of work in large organizations that developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is largely a tale of work as a collection of individual jobs. A variety of global forces unfolding over the last two decades, however, has pushed organizations worldwide to restructure work around teams, to enable more rapid, flexible, and adaptive responses to the unexpected. This shift in the structure of work has made team effectiveness a salient organizational concern. Teams touch our lives everyday and their effectiveness is important to well-being across a wide range of societal functions. There is over 50 years of psychological research—literally thousands of studies—focused on understanding and influencing the processes that underlie team effectiveness. Our goal in this monograph is to sift through this voluminous literature to identify what we know, what we think we know, and what we need to know to improve the effectiveness of work groups and teams. We begin by defining team effectiveness and establishing the conceptual underpinnings of our approach to understanding it. We then turn to our review, which concentrates primarily on topics that have well-developed theoretical and empirical foundations, to ensure that our conclusions and recommendations are on firm footing. Our review begins by focusing on cognitive, motivational/affective, and behavioral team processes—processes that enable team members to combine their resources to resolve task demands and, in so doing, be effective. We then turn our attention to identifying interventions, or ‘‘levers,’ ’ that can shape or align team processes and thereby provide tools

Methodological fit, an implicitly valued attribute of high-quality field research in organizations, has received little attention in the management literature. Fit refers to internal consistency among elements of a research project—research question, prior work, research design, and theoretical contribution. We introduce a contingency framework that relates prior work to the design of a research project, paying particular attention to the question of when to mix qualitative and quantitative data in a single research paper. We discuss implications of the framework for educating new field researchers. To advance management theory, a growing number of scholars are engaging in field research, studying real people, real problems, and real organizations. Although the potential relevance of field research is motivating, the research journey can be messy and inefficient, fraught with logistical hurdles and unexpected events. Researchers manage complex relationships with sites, cope with constraints on sample selection and timing of data collection, and often confront mid-project changes to planned research designs. With these additional challenges, the logic of a research design and how it supports the development of a specific theoretical contribution can be obscured or altered along the way in field research. Compared to experimental studies, analyses of published data sets, or computer simulations, achieving fit between the type of data collected in and the theoretical contribution of a given field research project is a dynamic and challenging process.

an earlier version of this paper, and to members of the Senior Teams Workshop and the Negotiations, Organizations, and Markets Seminar at the Harvard Business School for ideas and inspiration. We benefited from comments provided by three anonymous reviewers and the Editor of Leadership Quarterly. A DYNAMIC MODEL OF TOP MANAGEMENT TEAM EFFECTIVENESS: MANAGING UNSTRUCTURED TASK STREAMS Leadership research relating top management team demographics to firm performance has produced mixed empirical results. This paper suggests a new explanation for these inconsistencies. We first note that a given top management team (TMT) is likely to face a variety of different situations over time. Thus, while TMT demographic composition is relatively stable, the TMT task is dynamic and variable. In some situations, team members have similar information and interests (a symmetric distribution); in others, information or interests diverge (an asymmetric distribution). Based on team effectiveness theory, we then argue that, unless group process is managed accordingly, asymmetric distributions of situation-specific information and interests will reduce TMT decision-making effectiveness. We develop leader process choices to mitigate the potentially

Abstract not found

Acknowledgement: We would like to thank Allen Lee for helpful comments on prior drafts.

Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author.

We are extremely grateful to the attending surgeons, attending anesthesiologists, fellows, nurses, residents and other members of the participating organization for their involvement in and support of this research. We thank Dan Brass, the three anonymous ASQ reviewers, Andy

Emerging organizational research has proposed increasingly nuanced links between capabilities and routines, which in turn play vital roles in organizational survival and prosperity. We draw on prior work to define capabilities as involving some consistency in potential outcomes in a particular domain. This contrasts with routines, which involve consistency in processes. We report results of an inductive study of patterns linking capabilities and routines in 60 young firms, drawing on 1,725 transcript pages. Many capabilities arose through deliberate design or combinations of existing routines. In rare cases organizations repeatedly improvised in a particular area and thereby sustained capabilities that did not rely on consistent routines in the relevant action domain. We also found several ways in which organizational capabilities sometimes harmed overall organizational performance, although in some cases the organizations learned from harmful capabilities. Routines arose from multiple sources. We highlight three forms of “making do ” with routines available from varied sources, all forms of bricolage. Finally, routines played several roles in organizational transformation in addition to their contribution to inertia. The paper suggests that we can theoretically distinguish capabilities from routines even as they are intertwined over time in organizations, and that improvisation and bricolage play roles in organizational entrepreneurial learning.

comments on earlier drafts of this paper. This paper focuses on how a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team, a police department crisis team, performs its work. SWAT teams operate with an external focus, facing situations of high uncertainty, and must be prepared to take immediate action. Using data collected through interviews, observation, and archival sources, I explain how this team develops its work approach. This team operates by characterizing the sources of uncertainty, focusing on the role of opponents and the character of missions they undertake. In addition, officers on the team devote substantial efforts to explicitly reduce the external uncertainty they face by gathering information and imposing control. Stances, as summaries of uncertainty and the potential range of action, provide the group with a dynamic moment-by-moment method to bridge the unknown elements in the environment with action necessary to accomplish their work.