Search for: All records

Team membership in today’s open talent economy is more fluid and interchangeable than ever before. In light of these dynamics, we consider how team members’ signaling of human and social capital, in the form of challenging or supportive voice, informs our understanding of how individuals across an organizational network self-assemble into temporary work teams. We test our hypotheses in two separate multiwave studies and find support for our hypotheses above and beyond the effects of homophily. In Study 1, we find support for a human capital pathway in which challenging voice in a team fosters perceptions of quality work that enhance one’s personal reputation in the broader network. Personal reputation, in turn, predicts team assembly decisions. In Study 2, we consider a social capital pathway alongside the human capital pathway. We find that supportive voice in a team fosters friendship that enhances the extent to which one is trusted in the broader network, and trust subsequently influences team assembly decisions. Potential team members appear to prioritize the social capital signaled by supportive voice more so than the human capital signaled by challenging voice, although those who possess both human and social capital are also highly sought during team formation. We discuss the implications of these findings for the literatures on voice and team assembly. 

Driven by views of teams as dynamic systems with permeable boundaries, scholars are increasingly seeking to better understand how team membership changes (i.e., team members joining and/or leaving) shape the functioning and performance of organizational teams. However, empirical studies of team membership change appear to be progressing in three largely independent directions as researchers consider: (a) how newcomers impact and are impacted by the teams they join; (b) how teams adapt to member departures; or (c) how teams function under conditions of high membership fluidity, with little theoretical integration or consensus across these three areas. To accelerate an integrative stream of research on team membership change, we advance a conceptual framework which depicts each team membership change as a discrete team-level “event” which shapes team functioning to the extent to which it is “novel,” “disruptive,” and “critical” for the team. We use this framework to guide our review and synthesis of empirical studies of team membership change published over the past 20 years. Our review reveals numerous factors, across conceptual levels of the organization, that determine the strength (i.e., novelty, disruptiveness, criticality) of a team membership change event and, consequently, its impact on team functioning and performance. In closing, we provide propositions for future research that integrate a multilevel, event-based perspective of team membership change and demonstrate how team membership change events may impact organizational systems over time and across levels of observation.