RUNNING HEAD: THE EFFECT OF NEWCOMER ENTRY ON TEAM PERFORMANCE
THE EFFECT OF NEWCOMER ENTRY ON TEAM PERFORMANCE:
INTEGRATING INTRATEAM AND INTERTEAM PERSPECTIVES
Nannan Zhang (S3060403) Master Thesis (EBM897A30)
Supervisors
Prof. dr. F. A. (Floor) Rink dr. T. A. (Thom) de Vries
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc (Res) Economics and Business
Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior
2018-07
Abstract
This study integrates the literature on newcomer and boundary spanning to investigate the effect of newcomer entry on team performance. We propose that the indirect relationship between newcomer entry and team performance is mediated through two different paths. We hypothesize that intrateam coordination problem mediates the negative relationship between newcomer entry and team performance while team boundary spanning mediates the positive relationship between newcomer entry and team performance. Further, we anticipate that the direction of the indirect linkage is conditional on collective team identification. We test our hypotheses with a field study in a Dutch healthcare company. Results provided evidence for the mediating effect of intrateam coordination problem. Furthermore, we found a significant and negative indirect relationship between newcomer entry and team performance, through intrateam coordination problem when collective team identification was lower and found a significant and positive indirect relationship when collective team identification was higher.
However, we found no support for the mediating mechanism of team boundary spanning. The present research advances our knowledge on the mechanisms through, and conditions under which newcomer entry affects team performance.
Keywords: newcomer entry, intrateam coordination problem, team boundary spanning, team
performance, collective team identification
THE EFFECT OF NEWCOMER ENTRY ON TEAM PERFORMANCE:
INTEGRATING INTRATEAM AND INTERTEAM PERSPECTIVES
Introduction
Newcomer entry occurs frequently in today’s organizations due to increased employee mobility (Lewis et al., 2007). Newcomer entry refers to the arrival of new team member(s) on an established team who transfers within the organization (e.g., trainees) or joins the current organization externally (e.g., external professionals). Increasingly, international companies have been implementing traineeship programs in which graduates rotate between different functions and work teams within three years. Besides, employees are more often temporarily assigned to different project teams to provide expertise needed to utilize employees’ diverse knowledge and skills and accomplish complex tasks. Additionally, internal reorganization, transfer, and promotion also contribute to the increase in newcomer entry (Rink et al., 2013).
Newcomers can provide teams with “fresh blood” and unique knowledge and skills, thereby enhancing team performance (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Levine, Moreland, & Choi, 2001; Winfrey, 2008). Within stable work teams, team members tend to develop groupthink, and their ideas are also likely to converge, which constrains their interest in and capability to explore different possibilities (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004; De Dreu & West, 2001;
Guimera et al., 2005). As teams introduce experienced and skilled newcomers, their presence is likely to provide new perspectives to view the surrounding environment and prompt team members to become more critical toward their routines and output (Katz, 1982; Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004). Hence, newcomer entry can create an opportunity for teams to adapt their current work practices and improve performance (Rink et al., 2013).
There is, however, an important caveat to this conclusion that newcomer entry has a
positive effect on team performance. Extant research on newcomer has found inconclusive
results. On one hand, some empirical studies report a positive relationship between newcomer
entry and team performance (e.g., Ferriani, Cattani, & Baden-Fuller, 2009; Guimera et al.,
2005; Zoethout, Jager, & Molleman, 2010). Scholars have identified that newcomers are able
to introduce different ideas and spur creativity, thereby contributing to innovative solutions
(Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004; Ferriani, Cattani, & Baden-Fuller, 2009). On the other
hand, other empirical studies find a negative relationship between newcomer entry and team
performance because newcomers may decrease team comfort, and increase team conflicts and
miscommunication (e.g., Edmondson, 1999; Nemeth & Ormisto, 2007). Given the equivocal
findings, it is important to gain a comprehensive understanding about how newcomer entry affects team performance.
A potential explanation for these inconclusive results is that most newcomer research implicitly adopts an intrateam perspective, such that they primarily focus the influences of newcomer entry on the processes within teams. This stream of newcomer research neglects the fact that newcomer entry is often accompanied by new external relationships (Marrone, Tesluk, & Carson, 2007). In fact, newcomers can maintain contacts and social ties after they transfer to a new team (Dokko & Rosenkopf, 2010), so they have added value to broaden the team’s network. Specifically, they can build a new bridge to the outside world through which the team can receive valuable resources and connect with interdependent entities (Marrone, 2010), which will benefit team performance. Therefore, the effect of newcomer entry on team performance will be jointly decided by changes in internal dynamics and external boundary spanning activities induced by newcomers.
The present study combines the intrateam view on newcomer entry with the interteam view on team boundary spanning in order to reconcile the inconsistent findings on the effect of newcomer entry on team performance. We hypothesize that newcomer entry will affect team performance through two different mechanisms. On one hand, newcomers are regarded as outsiders when they enter an established team and have difficulties in communicating and coordinating with existing team members (i.e., oldtimers). Therefore, newcomer entry may induce intrateam coordination problem and decrease team performance. On the other hand, newcomers can help teams establish more external relationships and connect with external parties across team boundaries. Thus, newcomer entry can enhance interteam cooperation and team performance.
Although newcomer entry may bring coordination problem and external opportunities to the team, team members’ motivation to engage in these intergroup behaviors (e.g., solve coordination problem and utilize external opportunity) critically affects the outcomes. Hence, it is crucial to consider moderators that can capture individuals’ motivational factors. Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel, 1982; Turner et al., 1987) highlights the motivational role of social identity in affecting intergroup behavior in general and ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation in particular, so this theory is particularly useful to explain individuals’
motivation to engage in problem solving and team boundary spanning after newcomer entry.
Drawing from social identity theory, we therefore suggest that collective team identification
appears as a contingency factor that impacts team members’ motivation to solve intrateam
coordination problem and cross team boundaries. The relationships examined in the present study are summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual Model
We tested this model with a field study conducted in a Dutch healthcare company. In doing so, this study aims to make several contributions. First, reflecting on extant literature on newcomer, we aim to offer a potential explanation for the seemingly contradictory results of the relationship between newcomer entry and team performance. We adopt intrateam and interteam perspectives to examine the effect of newcomer entry in a more integrative manner.
Second, we investigate the contingency role of collective team identification and demonstrate that the effect of collective team identification is not as straightforward as what is argued before. Collective team identification appears as a double-edged sword and exerts different impacts depending on the contexts. Thus, we open up new avenues for research on intergroup behavior.
Theory and Hypotheses Development
The Negative Effect of Newcomer Entry on Team Performance: Social Identity Theory
Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel, 1982; Turner et al., 1987) is helpful to explain the effect of newcomer entry because it is a widely-used theoretical perspective to explain intergroup relations, especially prejudice and conflict among different groups, which is also one profound consequence of newcomer entry. The presence of newcomers on an established team may re-shape oldtimers’ identity (Rink & Ellemers, 2015) by changing the existing structure of subgroups within the team and updating the perceptions of the ingroup and the outgroup. Therefore, newcomer entry will induce changes in intergroup relations.
The core premise of social identity theory is that individuals’ self-construct is partially
determined by social groups with which they identify (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel, 1974).
Tajfel & Turner (1979) further describe how individuals establish their specific social identity.
First, individuals go through a phase of social categorization in which they segment, classify, and order the social environment in different groups such as ingroup and outgroup. Second, social comparison leads individuals to establish differences between the groups. Third, they develop social identification with their social group with emotional and value significance attached to that membership.
Social identity theory further suggests that individuals’ social identity is a key element to explain their behavior in different social contexts. Previous research has found that merely assigning individuals to a certain group affects their attitude and behavior towards ingroup and outgroup members even when no social interaction exists (i.e., minimal group paradigm;
Tajfel, 1974). The mere perception of belonging to two distinct groups (social categorization) is sufficient to trigger intergroup discrimination favoring the ingroup and derogating the out- group (Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Thus, when a newcomer enters an established team, he or she may change the perceptual structure of the team and be viewed as an outgroup member who is different from oldtimers (Kane, Argote, & Levine, 2005; Kane & Rink, 2015). Such social categorization will affect the social interaction between the newcomer and oldtimers. Thus, social identity theory may bear special relevance to explaining the effect of newcomer entry (as a specific source of intergroup relation change) on intrateam coordination (as a specific type of intergroup behavior).
Newcomer Entry and Intrateam Coordination Problem. Drawing from the definition of interteam coordination (Marks et al., 2005), intrateam coordination problem refers to an individual’s difficulties to align his or her actions with other team members to accomplish tasks. For example, intrateam coordination problem will occur when team members cannot match their working speed so that the tasks are not finished in a smooth work flow (Lewis, 2003). Additionally, miscommunication is likely to cause intrateam coordination problem in a way that team members misunderstand what tasks awaiting accomplishment and how to work on them. To summarize, intrateam coordination problem is derived from mismatched teamwork of team members.
Newcomer entry is likely to cause intrateam coordination problem because the work
flow and teamwork may be interrupted by the presence of newcomers. According to social
identity theory, individuals prefer to come closer to and associate with those who are similar
and familiar to them (Tajfel, 1974; Rink et al., 2013; Rink & Ellemers, 2015). As a member
who recently joins an established team, the newcomer is regarded as an outgroup member
who currently share few similarities or familiarities with the oldtimers (Hornsey et al., 2007;
Kane & Rink, 2015). Consequently, intrateam coordination problem may occur because the newcomer and oldtimers distance from one another. First, oldtimers feel more comfortable to share information and knowledge with the ingroup than with the outgroup (Kane, Argote, &
Levine, 2005; Phillips, Neale, & Liljenquist, 2003). As such, newcomers can hardly acquire necessary information and knowledge to become acquaint with work practices and involved in teamwork. Such lack of communication between newcomers and oldtimers will prevent the newcomers from understanding what the task is, how the team plans to accomplish the task, and how they should adjust their own working speed and methods. Consequently, lack of communication increases the likelihood that newcomers are seldom well coordinated with oldtimers to accomplish tasks. Second, ingroup favoritism is likely to motivate oldtimers to like and trust ingroup members with whom they have developed familiarity and identification (Kane, Argote, & Levine, 2005; Kane & Rink, 2016). Therefore, oldtimers are reluctant to develop interpersonal relationship with newcomers, preventing the newcomers from attaining full membership and gaining access to teamwork. Consequently, newcomers are constantly viewed as outsiders and excluded from information exchange so that, as mentioned above, they cannot have sufficient knowledge to understand how they can coordinate with oldtimers to work on the tasks.
Intrateam Coordination Problem and Team Performance. When a team undergoes intrateam coordination problem, team performance is likely to be negatively affected. First, because team members are not well coordinated with work processes and routines, they may work on the task with different working speed and methods, and the team can hardly finish specific steps smoothly. Thus, the team suffers from constant task disruption, which impedes the accomplishment of tasks and team performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Moreover, intrateam coordination problem may negatively affect team cohesion and induce relationship conflicts within the team. In this situation, team members direct more effort to resolve these relationship conflicts, which consumes time and effort to efficiently accomplish tasks and thus decreases team performance (Jehn, 1995; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Finally, intrateam coordination problem makes oldtimers incapable to accurately assess the level of newcomers’
skills and knowledge when task results cannot exactly reflect their actual skills. Consequently, oldtimers are unlikely to trust and adopt newcomers’ skills and knowledge in order to adjust or upgrade work processes and routines, which may impede potential improvements in team performance (Kane, Argote, & Levine, 2005; Kane & Rink, 2015).
Hypothesis 1: Intrateam coordination problem mediates the negative relationship
between newcomer entry and team performance.
The Positive Effect of Newcomer Entry on Team Performance: Social Capital Theory
Social identity theory primarily holds a negative view on newcomer entry and lacks power to explain why team boundary spanning (Ancona, 1990; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992a) considers newcomer entry to be an attractive way to organize teams to efficiently accomplish tasks. In this regard, social capital theory (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Lin & Dumin, 1986; Lin, 2017) appears helpful to explain the argument of team boundary spanning which is defined as
“the team’s actions to establish linkages and manage interactions with parties in the external environment” (Marrone, 2010). Similar to team boundary spanning, social capital theory also emphasizes the importance of externally seeking resources of interest through the interaction with external parties.
Social capital theory can be applied to explain the positive effect of newcomer entry.
Social capital theory argues that groups are located in a network of groups which (a) may be constructed for a specific interest or multiple interests, and (b) consists of different interest links in different segments of the network (Lin, 2017). Furthermore, individuals in different positions have access to different valued resources embedded in this network (Lin, 2000;
2017). Hence, when newcomers enter a team, they can link the team to the positions where they are currently located and help establish direct or indirect connections with other groups in the network (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Lin, 2017). In doing so, newcomers can help teams gain more resources and external support to efficiently accomplish tasks.
Newcomer Entry and Team Boundary Spanning. Drawing on the literature on team boundary spanning, Marrone (2010) summarized team boundary spanning actions in previous studies across three behavioral categories – representation, coordination of task performance, and general information search. First, the representation category refers to team actions that
“persuade other parties of team decisions, ask for resources, and protect the group” (Marrone,
2010). Typical representation actions are lobbying for a decision in favor of own team, asking
for resources and feedback from upper management, and presenting team progress to external
parties. Second, coordination of task performance reflects team actions that coordinate work
effort with interdependent parties to accomplish tasks. Example actions include collectively
developing work plan and monitoring work progress. Finally, general information search
refers to team actions that seek expertise and knowledge from experts to understand problem-
specific solutions or general trends. The present research will study all three dimensions to
fully capture team boundary spanning because these dimensions are closely related to each
other and can hardly be studied separately.
From the perspective of social capital theory, newcomers can increase team boundary spanning by exploiting their occupation of network positions. For example, newcomers can broaden the team’s social network by bridging disconnected parties and establishing new relationships between the team and its external environment, especially the team for which they worked in the past (Lin, 2017). Newcomers have developed their own social network prior to their entry to the current team (Ancona & Caldwell, 2009; Lin, 2000; 2017), so they can bring their connections and relationships with other external entities in the network to the new team (Dokko & Rosenkopf, 2010). As such, the team can obtain more opportunities to cross team boundaries and establish external relationships in the network. Moreover, as the team’s external relationships increase, the team is likely to expend more time and effort on coordinating with mutually interdependent parties and managing key external relationships (Marrone, 2010), which represents an increase in team boundary spanning.
Team Boundary Spanning and Team Performance. Social capital theory (Adler &
Kwon, 2002; Lin & Dumin, 1986; Lin, 2000; 2017) further argues that teams strive to gain and maintain valued resources to ensure that they can survive and develop, which are two primary motives for purposive external activities. In the era of resource scarcity and global competition, team boundary spanning has been becoming one influential driver to resource acquisition and team performance (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992a; Marrone, Tesluk, & Carson, 2007). Valued resources can be accessed by teams through social ties with other teams within the network (Lin, 2017). Hence, through its direct and indirect linkages to other teams, the team gains access to valued resources embedded in these other teams (Lin, 2000; 2017). Such valued resources as finance, expertise, and information are important for team performance because they enable teams to resolve problems and achieve an advantageous position.
Team boundary spanning is such externally-oriented activity which can connect the
team to other teams within the network and directly or indirectly provide access to valued
resources (Lin & Dumin, 1986; Lin, 2017). Specifically, through team boundary spanning,
teams bridge disconnected parties and have more opportunities for information exchange
which plays a critical role in searching valued resources (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Lin, 2017)
such as problem-specific knowledge and expertise. With these sufficient resources, teams feel
empowered to stimulate innovative solutions (Argote, McEvily, & Reagans, 2003; Hargadon,
1998) and thus improve team performance. Additionally, through team boundary spanning,
teams acquire information regarding the events outside the team. The information to which
teams are exposed may increase the likelihood of gaining and maintaining valued resources,
and seizing opportunities emerging in the transforming environment (Lin, 2017). Thus, the
resources gained from team boundary spanning enhance teams’ ability to handle tasks and improve team performance.
Hypothesis 2: Team boundary spanning mediates the positive relationship between newcomer entry and team performance.
The Moderating Role of Collective Team Identification
The effect of newcomer entry on intrateam coordination problem and team boundary spanning is more complex than what would suggest. First, social identity theory implicitly assumes that team members identify with their group so that they develop biases towards newcomers who are the outgroup members (Kane, Argote, & Levine, 2005; Phillips, Neale,
& Liljenquist, 2003). Notably, however, it is possible that team members loosely identify with their team and have no preference for ingroup members. Moreover, team boundary spanning merely elaborates on the possibilities of the increase in external relationships due to newcomer entry, whereas team members’ willingness to engage in team boundary spanning actions is not specified. It is likely that team members choose not to take actions in the face of the opportunities to develop external relationships and gain valued resources. Thus, it is necessary to consider subjective factors of team members to explicate specific conditions under which they will be more or less likely to have coordination problems with newcomers and cross team boundaries.
In identifying potential moderators that may simultaneously impact the coordination within and across the teams, social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel, 1982; Turner et al., 1987) is particularly relevant because it highlights the motivational role of social identity in influencing individuals’ within-team and between-team behavior (Joshi et al., 2009; Joshi, 2006). Moreover, the coordination within and across the teams requires collective actions of individual team members. In this situation, team members’ collective identification to their team is critical to integrate their opinions and behavior. Therefore, we suggest that collective team identification (Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005) will critically shape teams’ motivation to engage in intrateam coordination and boundary spanning.
The Interactive Effect of Newcomer Entry and Collective Team Identification on
Intrateam Coordination Problem. On one hand, we hypothesize that newcomer entry is
negatively related to intrateam coordination problem among teams with higher collective
team identification. In this case, team members are highly motivated to internalize team goals
and direct their effort to achieve these goals (Van Knippenberg & Van Schie, 2000). Given
that the team goals are often broad and cannot be achieved by individual member, one key
way to achieve these desired goals is to effectively coordinate with team members. Therefore, when newcomer entry may introduce disruptions and conflicts, collective team identification can serve as the motivation to solve intrateam coordination problem and achieve internalized team goals.
High collective team identification can also motivate individuals to trust more and value more team members (Kramer et al., 2001; Williams, 2000), thus improving the quality of interpersonal communication and the acceptance to team members (Liao et al., 2012). As such, when teams confront an increasing number of newcomers accompanied with potential disruption caused by these outsiders, high collective team identification will enable teams to mitigate prejudice and misunderstanding among team members (Bezrukova et al., 2009) and decrease conflicts and intrateam coordination problem (Han & Harms, 2010). Besides, team members with higher team identification are more loyal to the team when the team undergoes tough situation (Zdaniuk & Levine, 2001). Thus, high collective team identification is likely to increase team members’ motivation to solve intrateam coordination problem and improve current situation.
On the other hand, we anticipate newcomer entry to positively relate to intrateam coordination problem among teams with lower collective team identification. Prior research has identified that high collective team identification can positively affect how team members deal with team issues and even tough situations (Bezrukova et al., 2009; Zdaniuk & Levine, 2001). However, low collective team identification will negatively affect the way in which team members deal with the situations after newcomers enter the team. As team members are not highly identified with the team, they are unlikely to spend much time on the team issues.
Consequently, when newcomers enter the team and cause task disruption, they are unwilling to invest more time and effort to solve coordination problems or help newcomers coordinate with them. As such, newcomer entry induces intrateam coordination problem in the teams with lower collective team identification.
A Moderated Mediation Model. Taken together, the present argumentation suggests
that the indirect relationship between newcomer entry and team performance is mediated by
intrateam coordination problem (Hypothesis 1). Such problem is argued to negatively relate
to newcomer entry among teams with higher collective team identification but to positively
relate to newcomer entry among teams with lower collective team identification. Thus, while
intrateam coordination problem may be a mediator that transfers the role of newcomer entry
for team performance, the direction of this indirect linkage will be conditional on collective
team identification.
Hypothesis 3: Collective team identification moderates the indirect relation between newcomer entry and team performance mediated by intrateam coordination problem.
This indirect relationship is positive when collective team identification is higher, but negative when collective team identification is lower.
The Interactive Effect of Newcomer Entry and Collective Team Identification on Team Boundary Spanning. We hypothesize that when collective team identification is high, newcomer entry may increase intrateam coordination, but simultaneously decrease boundary spanning. First, social identity literature shows that individuals who strongly identify with their team are likely to allocate more of their attention and resources to the team, its concerns, and its members (Dokko, Kane, Tortoriello, 2014; Haslam & Ellemers, 2005). This tendency suggests that team members with high collective team identification possess few cognitive resources to consider external interactions and the inputs from these contacts (Dokko, Kane, Tortoriello, 2014). Second, ingroup favoritism caused by high collective team identification prevents team members from engaging in external interactions (Dokko, Kane, Tortoriello, 2014; Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Kane, Argote, & Levine, 2005). Furthermore, when team members highly identify with their team, they tend to pursue a superior ingroup identity and maintain this positive identity. Consequently, team members are unwilling to seek support from external parties which may show their weakness and threaten their identity (Lee, 2002).
Thus, though newcomer entry has potential to build new conduits to external environment and gain resources, high collective team identification induces team members’ inability and unwillingness to engage in external contacts, which limits the potential increase in boundary spanning induced by newcomer entry (Luan et al., 2015).
We suggest that newcomer entry positively associates with team boundary spanning among teams with lower collective team identification. In this situation, team members have few intergroup bias and thus evaluate the outgroup in a more positive manner (Dokko, Kane, Tortoriello, 2014; Luan et al., 2015). While newcomers build a bridge to the disconnected world, team members are more likely to actively explore external environment and acquire valued resources. Besides, given that team members with low collective team identification seldom feel obligated to comply with current team norms, they are motivated to cross team boundaries and search valued resources to improve team functioning when newcomer entry establishes a new channel to the external world (Dokko, Kane, Tortoriello, 2014; Haslam &
Ellemers, 2005).
A Moderated Mediation Model. As hypothesized, the indirect relationship between newcomer entry and team performance is mediated by team boundary spanning (Hypothesis 2). Moreover, such external activity is argued to negatively associate with newcomer entry among teams with higher collective team identification but to positively relate to newcomer entry among teams with lower collective team identification. Hence, whereas team boundary spanning mediates the indirect linkage between newcomer entry and team performance, the direction of this indirect linkage may be conditional on collective team identification.
Hypothesis 4: Collective team identification moderates the indirect relation between newcomer entry and team performance mediated by team boundary spanning. This indirect relationship is negative when collective team identification is higher, while positive when collective team identification is lower.
Methods
Sample and Procedure
We conducted a field study in a Dutch healthcare company to test our hypotheses. We chose this company for two main reasons. First, this company provided diverse services in many cities in the Netherlands, so it adopted a team-based organizational structure to achieve lower costs and higher efficiency. Consequently, membership changes frequently occurred in the company. Second, because of the diversity of the services that the company provided, the coordination among employees within and across the teams was necessary to accomplish the tasks. Thus, employees’ coordination was an integral part of effective daily work.
The questionnaire was distributed to the subordinates in 105 work teams via Qualtrics in April, 2012. The subordinates were not required to answer all the items. Instead, they were randomly chosen to answer certain questions to represent team members’ overall perceptions and evaluation of their teams. After two weeks, the supervisors of the teams were invited to accomplish an online survey. This timing of measurement allowed a time lag between the measurement of the predictors provided by the subordinates and the outcome provided by the supervisors. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. In total, 833 subordinates from 85 teams submitted useable surveys, and 83 supervisors filled the survey. We also collected the archival data on employees’ membership changes within the company.
We excluded 1 team because the team members had few connections and only held
monthly meetings to exchange information, 2 teams because no outcome data were provided
by the supervisors, and 11 teams because the team members with complete archival data were
less than 3. In total, 1020 employees from 71 teams, among whom 754 subordinates and 71
supervisors completed the survey, were analyzed in the study. These participants were mostly females (65.80%), and were, on average, 44.92 years old (SD=11.40)
1.
Measures
Newcomer Entry. The archival data on the date of each employee joining the current team were collected to identify newcomers. Because the company underwent a restructuring accompanied with considerable changes in membership in January, 2011, the employees who entered the team after the restructuring were defined as newcomers (newcomer=1, oldtimer
=0). In total, this company had 438 newcomers (M=6.17, SD=4.91). Next, we calculated the percentage of newcomers on each team to obtain the measure of newcomer entry.
Collective Team Identification. We measured collective team identification using a 6- item scale (e.g., “I strongly identify with other team members,” and “I think it is great to be part of my team”) which was adjusted from Van der Vegt & Bunderson’s (2005) scale. The subordinates evaluated their identification with the team after newcomer entry on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Cronbach’s α was .89.
Intrateam Coordination Problem. We measured intrateam coordination problem with Lewis’ (2003) 5-item coordination subscale adopted from the Transactive Memory Systems scale. The subordinates evaluated coordination problem within their team on a 7-point scale (1= “completely disagree”, 7= “completely agree”). We reverse-scored two items “My team worked together in a well-coordinated way,” and “My team had very few misunderstandings about what to do and who should do”. Cronbach’s α was .84.
Team Boundary Spanning. We adopted a 6-item boundary spanning scale (Marrone, Tesluk, & Carson, 2007) and deleted one item capturing boundary spanning activities across organizations rather than teams. The subordinates assessed the team’s coordination with other teams within the organization on 5 items ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Cronbach’s α was .81.
Team Performance. Two weeks after the subordinates answered the questionnaire, the supervisors were invited to evaluate team performance with Ancona & Caldwell’s (1992b) 6- item scale with a range from 1 (far below average) to 7 (far above average). Specifically, they evaluated their team’s adherence to schedules, working efficiency, work quality, productivity, goal accomplishment, and effectiveness. Cronbach’s α was .92.
1 The data on one participant’s age and gender are missing.
Control Variables. This study controlled for the effect of team members who left the team after the restructuring in January, 2011 because membership change caused by oldtimers leaving their team was likely to influence team performance. We calculated the percentage of team members who left the team (N=170, M=2.39, SD=2.59). Besides, the study controlled for newcomers’ tenure on the current team because the degree of newcomers’ effect on team performance may change due to the increase in team tenure. Finally, the study controlled for the effect of task interdependence within and outside the team because task interdependence may impact teams’ coordination with other team members and colleagues from other teams.
We measured task interdependence with a scale adjusted from Van der Vegt, Van de Vliert, &
Oosterhof’s (2003) research. Intrateam task interdependence was measured with three items:
“The division of tasks between team members is such that we depend on each other when carrying out our work,” “The execution of our team tasks requires a lot of communication and coordination between team members,” and “The members of my team strongly depend on each other for the proper performance of our team tasks” (1= “completely disagree”, 7=
“completely agree”). Finally, interteam task interdependence was measured with three items:
“We are highly dependent on other teams for the proper execution of our tasks,” “A good execution of our team tasks requires a lot of coordination with (people from) other teams,”
and “The execution of our team tasks requires a lot of communication and coordination with other teams” (1= “completely disagree”, 7= “completely agree”). Cronbach’s α of intrateam and interteam task interdependence was .75 and .89 respectively.
Data Aggregation
Because the variables were measured at the individual level (except team performance assessed by the supervisors), they should be aggregated to the team level before data analysis.
Thus, we examined whether the variables measured by the Likert scales can be aggregated to the team level. The results demonstrated significance of F test for the ICC(1) of collective team identification (N=657, ICC[1]=.22, F[70, 586]=3.61, p<.001), intrateam coordination problem (N=336, ICC[1]=.25, F[70, 265]=2.54, p<.001), team boundary spanning (N=661, ICC[1]=.14, F[70, 590]=2.55, p<.001), intrateam task interdependence (N=339, ICC[1]=.28, F[70, 268]=2.88, p<.001), and interteam task interdependence (N=335, ICC[1]=.21, F[69, 265]=2.24
2, p<.001). Moreover, the results of ICC(2) and r
WGshowed that it was appropriate to aggregate collective team identification (ICC[2]=.72, r
WG=.89), intrateam coordination
2 Interteam task interdependence of Team 46 were not measured by all three subordinates.
problem (ICC[2]=.61, r
WG=.80), team boundary spanning (ICC[2]=.61, r
WG=.84), intrateam task interdependence (ICC[2]=.65, r
WG=.75), and interteam task interdependence (ICC[2]
=.55, r
WG=.73) to a team level. Finally, we also standardized newcomer entry, collective team identification, and control variables prior to data analysis.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all the variables are reported in Table 1. The results revealed that intrateam coordination problem was negatively related to team performance (r=-.42, p<.001). In addition, collective team identification was positively related to team performance (r=.44, p<.001) and negatively related to intrateam coordination problem (r=-.67, p<.001). Of the control variables, the percentage of the oldtimers who left their team after the restructuring (from January 2011 to April 2012) was negatively related to team boundary spanning (r=-.31, p<.01). Besides, interteam task interdependence was found to have a positive relationship with newcomer entry (r=.29, p<.05).
Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis 1 posited that the negative relationship between newcomer entry and team performance is mediated by intrateam coordination problem. As shown in Table 2, the results demonstrated a significant and positive relationship between newcomer entry and intrateam coordination problem (B=.22, SE=.08, p<.01) and a negative relationship between intrateam coordination problem and team performance (B=-.50, SE=.13, p<.001). Moreover, the results supported the indirect relationship between newcomer entry and team performance through intrateam coordination problem across different levels of the moderator (indirect relationship at -1SD=-.30, 95% confidence interval=-.61 to -.13; indirect relationship at +1SD=.07, 95%
confidence interval= .00 to .22). Thus, the first hypothesis was supported.
Table 2
Regression Results: Intrateam Coordination Problem
Predictor Dependent Variable
Intrateam Coordination Problem Team Performance
Exit Oldtimers -.06 (.07) -.20 (.11)+
Newcomer Tenure .09 (.07) .06 (.12)
Intrateam Task Interdependence .10 (.07) .12 (.12)
Interteam Task Interdependence -.06 (.07) -.03 (.12)
Newcomer Entry (NE) .22 (.08)** -.01 (.12)
Collective Team Identification (CTI) -.58 (.07)***
NE x CTI -.37 (.09)***
Intrateam Coordination Problem -.50 (.13)***
Conditional Indirect Effect on Team Performance
Collective Team Identification Effect 95% Confidence Interval
- 1SD -.30 (.11) [-.61, -.13]
+1SD .07 (.05) [.00, .22]
Interaction Effect on Intrateam Coordination Problem
Collective Team Identification Effect 95% Confidence Interval
- 1SD .59 (.13) [.33, .86]
+1SD -.14 (.10) [-.34, .06]
Moderated Mediation
Index 95% Confidence Interval
Intrateam Coordination Problem .19 [.07, .38]
Note: n = 70 teams. +p<.10; *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001.
Unstandardized regression coefficients are shown; standard errors are noted within parentheses
Hypothesis 2 posited that team boundary spanning mediates the positive relationship between newcomer entry and team performance. As depicted in Table 3, although newcomer entry was significantly associated with team boundary spanning (B=.11, SE=.05, p<.05), the relationship between team boundary spanning and team performance was insignificant (B=
-.39, SE=.33, ns). Besides, there is no support for the indirect relationship between newcomer entry and team performance through team boundary spanning (indirect relationship at -1SD=
-.09, 95% confidence interval=-.34 to .02; indirect relationship at +1SD=.00, 95% confidence
interval=-.07 to .07). Thus, the second hypothesis was not supported by the evidence.
Table 3
Regression Results: Team Boundary Spanning
Predictor Dependent Variable
Team Boundary Spanning Team Performance
Exit Oldtimers -.12 (.05)* -.21 (.13)
Newcomer Tenure -.04 (.05) -.03 (.13)
Intrateam Task Interdependence -.04 (.05) .03 (.13)
Interteam Task Interdependence .03 (.05) .02 (.13)
Newcomer Entry (NE) .11 (.05)* -.03 (.14)
Collective Team Identification (CTI) -.02 (.05)
NE x CTI -.11 (.06)+
Team Boundary Spanning -.39 (.33)
Conditional Indirect Effect on Team Performance
Collective Team Identification Effect 95% Confidence Interval
- 1SD -.09 (.08) [-.34, .02]
+1SD .00 (.04) [-.07, .07]
Interaction Effect on Team Boundary Spanning
Collective Team Identification Effect 95% Confidence Interval
- 1SD .22 (.09) [.04, .40]
+1SD -.00 (.07) [-.14, .13]
Moderated Mediation
Index 95% Confidence Interval
Team Boundary Spanning .04 [-.02, .20]
Note: n = 70 teams. +p<.10; *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001.
Unstandardized regression coefficients are shown; standard errors are noted within parentheses
Hypothesis 3 hypothesized that the indirect relationship between newcomer entry and
team performance, mediated by intrateam coordination problem, is contingent on the value of
collective team identification. As illustrated in Table 2, we found a significant and negative
indirect relationship between newcomer entry and team performance when collective team
identification was lower (indirect relationship at -1SD=-.30, 95% confidence interval=-.61 to
-.13). Furthermore, this indirect relationship was significantly positive when collective team
identification was higher (indirect relationship at +1SD= .07, 95% confidence interval= .00
to .22). Thus, the results supported Hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 4 posited that the indirect relationship between newcomer entry and team performance, through team boundary spanning, is conditional on the value of collective team identification. As shown in Table 3, although the interaction coefficient for newcomer entry x collective team identification was marginally significant (B=-.11, SE=.06, p<.10), the indirect relationship between newcomer entry and team performance was not significant neither when collective team identification was lower (indirect relationship at -1SD=-.09, 95% confidence interval=-.34 to .02) nor when the moderator was higher (indirect relationship at +1SD=.00, 95% confidence interval=-.07 to .07). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was not supported.
Figure 2. Newcomer Entry, Collective Team Identification, and Intrateam Coordination Problem
Figure 3. Newcomer Entry, Collective Team Identification, and Team Boundary Spanning
General Discussion
Theoretical Contributions
First, the present study offers an integrative way to consider seemingly contradictory findings on the effect of newcomer entry on team performance. One potential reason is that most newcomer studies implicitly adopt an intrateam perspective and primarily focus on how newcomer entry influences teams’ internal dynamics and processes. We argue that although newcomers induce intrateam coordination problems within the team, they can also broaden teams’ network and bridge additional relationships with disconnected entities. Considering the potential effect of newcomer entry on both internal processes and external networking, we integrated the literature on newcomer and team boundary spanning to investigate how and when benefits or detriments of newcomer entry emerge from both intrateam and interteam perspectives. Although this study only found the support for the mediating role of intrateam coordination problem, it adds to existing newcomer entry research by providing a potentially useful framework to reconcile inconsistent results of previous studies on the linkage between newcomer entry and team performance.
Second, the present study makes contribution to the newcomer literature by offering empirical evidence collected from the field. Most studies on newcomers examine hypotheses with experiments conducted in laboratory (for a review see Rink et al., 2013). In an attempt to improve generalizability of research findings, this study conducted a field study in a firm after its restructuring which provided a suitable, realistic context to study newcomer entry. As such, we had a close observation on the effect of newcomer entry on team performance in an organizational context and provided more generalizable empirical evidence.
Moreover, this study contributes to the boundary spanning literature by incorporating social capital theory (Lin & Dumin, 1986; Lin, 2017) to investigate why boundary spanning is beneficial to team performance. Previous research often applies social network theory to explain how and why boundary spanning helps teams engage in external networking (e.g., Clement, Shipilov, & Galunic, 2018; Dokko, Kane, Tortoriello, 2014). In doing so, boundary spanning is often described as an interactive process to gain valued resources from external parties. Drawing from the emphasis on valued resources shared with social capital theory, the present study views boundary spanning in such a different way that boundary spanning can also be studied as a purposive action (input) to achieve team goals such as the acquisition of valued resources.
Finally, the present study has important implications for the way that scholars think
about collective team identification. Some scholars argue that collective team identification
has a positive impact on utilizing team diversity (e.g., Kearney et al., 2009) whereas others point out that collective team identification negatively affects intergroup bias (Ashforth et al., 2008). The results of our study showed that the effect of collective team identification is more complicated than what is suggested. Among teams with higher collective team identification, newcomer entry had limited impact on intrateam coordination problem and team boundary spanning partly because team members have already possessed intergroup biases prior to newcomer entry. However, among teams with lower collective team identification, the effect of newcomer entry was more complicated than previous theorizing would suggest. On one hand, newcomer entry was found to increase intrateam coordination problem which impairs team performance. On the other hand, newcomer entry can increase team boundary spanning activities which can benefit team performance.
Practical Implications
The current study provides important implications for performance management after newcomers enter an established team. Given the frequent occurrence of newcomer entry, it appears crucial for organizations to understand how and when they can mitigate the negative effects of newcomer entry and maximize its positive effects to improve team performance.
The present study investigated the underlying mechanisms through which newcomer entry influences team performance and found that newcomer entry differentially influences teams’
internal processes and externally-directed activities. Thus, organizations are advised to weigh the benefits of team boundary spanning against the risks of intrateam coordination problems when they attempt to introduce newcomers to an established team.
Additionally, our findings further demonstrate that collective team identification is a critical contingency factor in the context of newcomer entry. When teams established for a relatively short period strive to upsize the team and expand their scope, low collective team identification can serve as an accelerator to cross team boundaries. In this case, teams have few needs to increase team members’ identification with the team. However, when intrateam coordination is critically important for team performance, low collective team identification may worsen the negative effect of newcomer entry. Therefore, teams need to take actions to increase team members’ identification with the team. For example, teams can use integrating language-based strategy (e.g., we) to create and increase team identity (Kane & Rink, 2015).
Given the complex effect of collective team identification, organizations are well advised to
critically think about the role of collective team identification and take necessary actions to
intervene employees’ team identification when required.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Although the present study has some strengths (e.g., multi-source data collected in the field), some limitations should be noted. First, we only examined the contingency effect of collective team identification without investigating the moderating effect of other contextual factors. The present study focused more on team members’ motivation to engage in resolving coordination problems and cross team boundaries. Future research can expand our conceptual model and investigate the factors which influence team members’ ability to engage in these activities. Prior studies show that individuals with diverse functional background are able to better communicate and coordinate with other colleagues with different functions (Bunderson
& Sutcliffe, 2002; Bunderson, 2003). Thus, future research can study whether team members’
intrapersonal functional diversity increases the quality of intrateam coordination and external interactions after newcomers bring new functional perspectives and external relations.
Second, although we found support for the mediating effect of intrateam coordination problem, the interteam mechanism of team boundary spanning was not supported. We argued that newcomers can bridge disconnected parties and provide access to valued resources in the network (Dokko & Rosenkopf, 2010; Marrone, 2010) that can help the team accomplish tasks and improve team performance. As noted, one key change induced by newcomer entry is to gain more access to valued resources from external environment. Hence, future research can investigate the mediating effect of resource acquisition on the indirect relationship between newcomer entry and team performance rather than examining the general boundary spanning activities.
Finally, we separately studied the mediating effect of intrateam coordination problem and team boundary spanning without considering the interaction of these two mediators. Prior studies suggest that although effectively managing external network is a key factor for team performance, it is important that teams can simultaneously maintain effective team processes (Ancona, 1990; Ancona & Caldwell, 2009; Marrone et al., 2007). Therefore, the increase in team boundary spanning may occupy the resources allocated to solve intrateam coordination problem and vice versa. Thus, it is worthwhile to investigate whether the effect of newcomer entry on team performance may be affected by the interactive effect of intrateam coordination problem and team boundary spanning.
Conclusions
The research has examined a moderated mediation model of the indirect relationship
between newcomer entry and team performance. In doing so, this study made contributions to
a more comprehensive understanding of the roles of intrateam coordination problem and team
boundary spanning. We found a significant, negative indirect relationship between newcomer
entry and team performance, mediated by intrateam coordination problem when collective
team identification was lower, and found a significantly positive indirect relationship when
the moderator was higher, but we found no support for the mediating role of team boundary
spanning. We hope that the research findings will trigger further research on newcomer entry
and help organizations and managers mitigate the negative effects of newcomer entry and,
meanwhile, benefit from newcomer entry.
References
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 27(1), 17-40.
Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategic for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 334-365.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992a). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4) 634-665.
Ancona, D.G., & Caldwell, D.F. (1992b). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321-341.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (2009). Compose teams to assure successful boundary activity. In E.
A. Locke (Eds.), Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior: Indispensable Knowledge for Evidence-Based Management (pp. 295-308). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W, & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-‐of-‐the-‐science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25 (2), 147-173.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571-582.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An exami- nation of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325-374.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 14(1), 20-39.
Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., Zanutto, E. L., & Thatcher, S. M. (2009). Do workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A moderated model of faultlines, team identification, and group performance. Organization Science, 20(1), 35-50.
Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Team member functional background and involvement in management teams:
Direct effects and the moderating role of power centralization. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 458-474.
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 875-893.
Clement, J., Shipilov, A., & Galunic, C. (2018). Brokerage as a public good: The externalities of net- work hubs for different formal roles in creative organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(2), 251-286.
De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191-1201.
Dokko, G., Kane, A. A., & Tortoriello, M. (2014). One of us or one of my friends: How social identity and tie strength shape the creative generativity of boundary-spanning ties. Organization Studies, 35(5), 703-726.
Dokko, G., & Rosenkopf, L. (2010). Social capital for hire? Mobility of technical professionals and firm influence in wireless standards committees. Organization Science, 21(3), 677-695.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Ferriani, S., Cattani, G., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2009). The relational antecedents of project-entrepre- neurship: Network centrality, team composition and project performance. Research Policy, 38 (10), 1545-1558.
Guimera, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro, J., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science, 308, 697-702.
Han, G., & Harms, P. D. (2010). Team identification, trust and conflict: A mediation model. Inter- national Journal of Conflict Management, 21(1), 20-43.
Hargadon, A. B. (1998). Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation.
California Management Review, 40(3), 209-227.
Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. (2005). Social identity in industrial and organizational psychology:
Concepts, controversies and contributions. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 39-118.
Hornsey, M. J., Grice, T., Jetten, J., Paulsen, N., & Callan, V. (2007). Group-directed criticisms and recommendations for change: Why newcomers arouse more resistance than oldtimers. Persona- lity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(7), 1036-1048.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.
Joshi, A. (2006). The influence of organizational demography on the external networking behavior of teams. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 583-595.
Joshi, A., Pandey, N., & Han, G. H. (2009). Bracketing team boundary spanning: An examination of task-‐based, team-‐level, and contextual antecedents. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 731-759.
Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81-104.
Kane, A. A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(1), 56-71.
Kane, A. A., & Rink, F. (2015). How newcomers influence group utilization of their knowledge:
Integrating versus differentiating strategies. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19(2), 91-105.
Kane, A. A., & Rink, F. (2016). When and how groups utilize dissenting newcomer knowledge:
Newcomers’ future prospects condition the effect of language-based identity strategies. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(5), 591-607.
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members' need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 581- 598.
Kramer, R. M., Hanna, B. A., Su, S., & Wei, J. (2001). Collective identity, collective trust, and social capital: Linking group identification and group cooperation. In M. E. Turner (Ed.). Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 174-196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lee, F. (2002). The social costs of seeking help. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38(1), 17-35.
Levine, J. M., Moreland, R. L., & Choi, H. S. (2001). Group socialization and newcomer innovation.
In M. Hogg & S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook in Social Psychology: Group Processes (Vol.3, pp.86-106). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Limited.
Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 587-603.
Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B., & Keller, J. (2007). Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 159-178.
Liao, J., Jimmieson, N. L., O’Brien, A. T., & Restubog, S. L. (2012). Developing transactive memory systems: Theoretical contributions from a social identity perspective. Group & Organization Management, 37(2), 204-240.
Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29(6), 785-795.
Lin, N. (2017). Building a network theory of social capital. In Social Capital (pp. 29-54). Routledge.
Lin, N., & Dumin, M. (1986). Access to occupations through social ties. Social Networks, 8(4), 365- 385.
Luan, K., Ling, C. D., & Xie, X. Y. (2015). The nonlinear effects of educational diversity on team creativity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Advanced published online.
doi: 10.1111/1744-7941.12078.
Marks, M. A., DeChurch, L. A., Mathieu, J. E., Panzer, F. J., & Alonso, A. (2005). Teamwork in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 964-971.
Marrone, J. A. (2010). Team boundary spanning: A multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. Journal of Management, 36(4), 911-940.
Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1423-1439.
Nemeth, C. J., & Ormiston, M. (2007). Creative idea generation: Harmony versus stimulation.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(3), 524-535.
Phillips, K. W., Neale, M. A., & Liljenquist, K. (2003). Staying on task: The impact of newcomer identity on group process and performance. In annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle, WA.
Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2015). The pernicious effects of unstable work group membership: How work group changes undermine unique task contributions and newcomer acceptance. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18(1), 6-23.
Rink, F., Kane, A. A., Ellemers, N., & Van der Vegt, G. S. (2013). Team receptivity to newcomers:
Five decades of evidence and future research themes. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 247-293.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65-93.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1- 39.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S.
Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J. T. Jost, J.
Sidanius, J. T. Jost, J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 276-293). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams:
The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 532- 547.
Van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and orga- nizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and team identification.
Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 715-727.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Van Schie, E. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(2), 137-147.
Williams, M. (2000). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust develop- ment. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 337-396.
Winfrey, C. (2008). Newcomers: Two new key additions to our staff. Smithsonian, 39(6), 8.
Zdaniuk, B., & Levine, J. M. (2001). Group loyalty: Impact of members' identification and contri- butions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(6), 502-509.
Zoethout, K., Jager, W., & Molleman, E. (2010). When does a newcomer contribute to a better perfor- mance? A multi-agent study on self-organizing processes of task allocation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 13(3), 1-28.
