Suchergebnisse

As division of labor in a group can often lead to differences in perceptions about the importance of different knowledge bases to a group task, these differences can hinder the integration of different knowledge to solve task problems in a group. This study examines the social referents that group members turn to for judgments about knowledge importance, and the extent to which the relative influence of each referent depends on the group-level social network structure. The findings indicate that group members are more likely to have shared judgments with their cohesive and structurally equivalent referents within their advice network, and the strength of social influence from their cohesive and structurally equivalent referents is likely to depend on the advice network density at the group-level. However, there was no significant association in judgment similarity between group members and their central referents within the advice network. Overall, this study suggests that while social influence (in its most straightforward form) occurs between pairs of individuals, the strength of influence of a social referent is dependent on how social cues are distributed within the group's network structure. Theoretical and managerial implications for research on shared mental models and network theory of social influence are discussed.

There is increasing recognition that group members learn not only within the group (i.e., local learning), but also externally (i.e., distal learning), and these two group learning processes may facilitate group performance in different ways. Yet, despite this recognition, there is much that is not understood about whether they complement or inhibit each other in affecting group performance, and whether group social and task conditions that foster one type of learning do so at the expense of the other. The findings from this field study of teams from four firms show that (1) local learning and distal learning are positively related to group efficiency and group innovativeness, respectively; (2) distal learning negatively interacts with local learning to impede group efficiency; and (3) high levels of group cohesion promote distal learning but diminish local learning. Overall, these findings suggest that there are not only performance trade-offs to engaging in either only local or distal learning, but also performance disadvantages to engaging in both types of group learning because distal learning impedes local learning from achieving a high level of group efficiency. In addition, there is preliminary evidence to suggest that tensions can arise from simultaneously managing both types of group learning because a high level of group cohesion increases distal learning but decreases local learning.

When organizations face paradoxical tensions, such as when they must simultaneously meet scientific and commercial objectives, individuals within the organization also experience tensions. How individuals' responses to these tensions inform the collective organizational response remains a theoretical and empirical challenge. We address this challenge by introducing a social network perspective. In a two-stage mixed-method study of a research institute in Taiwan, we examined how individuals' social networks facilitated the organization's response to a science-commerce paradox. Our results demonstrated that the level of heterogeneity in each individual's social network influenced how each individual contributed to the organization's collective response. Specifically, individuals with heterogeneous instrumental networks were more likely to contribute to the organization-wide consensus response, whereas individuals with homogeneous expressive networks were more likely to contribute to a polarized subgroup response. Our findings suggest that individuals' roles in shaping a collective organizational response to paradoxes depends on who they seek advice from and who they befriend.

AbstractResearch Question/IssueDoes board turnover improve future firm performance? Our research investigates whether and when board turnover is beneficial from an information processing perspective.Research Findings/InsightsDrawing from information processing theory, we propose and test a novel model that explains how magnitude of board turnover influences future firm performance, and what pre‐turnover board characteristics mitigate the negative impact of board turnover on future firm performance. We find that board turnover negatively influences future firm performance, and pre‐turnover board meeting frequency, board job‐related diversity, CEO power relative to the board, and board tenure moderate this negative impact.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsPast findings of the impact of board turnover are limited and equivocal, suggesting the need to conduct more systematic investigation to explain post‐turnover firm performance and to consider boundary conditions that affect this relationship. Building on information processing theory, we explain that the negative impact of board turnover on future firm performance is due to disruption of the board's information elaboration ability. Furthermore, we advance the novel perspective that boards which developed higher information elaboration ability prior to turnover can better mitigate the disruption in information processing resulting from board turnover.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsThere are costs to board turnover that should be considered seriously. Our study demonstrates that higher magnitude of board turnover leads to poorer subsequent firm performance. The importance of pre‐turnover board's information elaboration ability implies that board turnover should be planned and actively managed—just like CEO succession planning—to minimize information processing disruption from turnover.