Five studies examined the relationship between talent and team performance. Two survey studies found that people believe there is a linear and nearly monotonic relationship between talent and performance: Participants expected that more talent improves performance and that this relationship never turns negative. However, building off research on status conflicts, we predicted that talent facilitates performance—but only up to a point, after which the benefits of more talent decrease and eventually become detrimental as intrateam coordination suffers. We also predicted that the level of task interdependence is a key determinant of when more talent is detrimental rather than beneficial. Three archival studies revealed that the too-much-talent effect emerged when team members were interdependent (football and basketball) but not independent (baseball). Our basketball analysis also established the mediating role of team coordination. When teams need to come together, more talent can tear them apart.
AugusteB.KihnP.MillerM. (2010). Closing the talent gap: Attracting and retaining top-third graduates to careers in teaching (McKinsey & Company Report). Retrieved from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/closing-the-talent-gap/
BenderskyC.HaysN. A. (2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23, 323–340.
4.
BermanS. L.DownJ.HillC. W. (2002). Tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage in the National Basketball Association. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 13–31.
5.
BloomM. (1999). The performance effects of pay dispersion on individuals and organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 25–40.
6.
ChambersE. G.FoulonM.Handfield-JonesH.HanklinS. M.MichaelsE. G. (1998). The war for talent. The McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 44–57.
7.
CraneD. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 29, 699–714.
8.
DayD. V.GordonS.FinkC. (2012). The sporting life: Exploring organizations through the lens of sport. Academy of Management Annals, 6, 397–433.
9.
De DreuC. K. W.WeingartL. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749.
FrankR. H. (1985). Choosing the right pond: Human behavior and the quest for status. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
16.
GouldR. V. (2002). The origins of status hierarchies: A formal theory and empirical test. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 1143–1178.
17.
GreerL. L.CarusoH. M.JehnK. A. (2011). The bigger they are, the harder they fall: Linking team power, conflict, congruence, and team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 116–128.
18.
GroysbergB.PolzerJ. T.ElfenbeinH. A. (2011). Too many cooks spoil the broth: How high-status individuals decrease group effectiveness. Organization Science, 22, 722–737.
19.
GroysbergB.SantL.AbrahamsR. (2008). When ‘stars’ migrate, do they still perform like stars?MIT Sloan Management Review, 50, 41–46.
20.
HalevyN.ChouE. Y.GalinskyA. D.MurnighanK. (2012). When hierarchy wins: Evidence from the National Basketball Association. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 3, 398–406.
21.
HollingerJ. (2005). Pro basketball forecast: 2005-2006. Dulles, VA: Potomac.
22.
LittleR. J. A.RubinD. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
23.
MaloneT. W.CrowstonK. (1994). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26, 87–119.
24.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376.
25.
McClellandD. C. (1998). Identifying competencies with behavioral-event interviews. Psychological Science, 9, 331–339.
26.
MuirW. M. (1996). Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: Selection program and direct responses. Poultry Science, 75, 447–458.
OverbeckJ. R.CorrellJ.ParkB. (2005). Internal status sorting in groups: The problem of too many stars. In Thomas-HuntM.MannixE.NealeM. A. (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (pp. 169–199). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Press.
30.
PorathC. L.OverbeckJ. R.PearsonC. M. (2008). Picking up the gauntlet: How individuals respond to status challenges. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1945–1980.
31.
ReadyD. A.CongerJ. A. (2007, June). Make your company a talent factory. Harvard Business Review, 15, 69–77.
32.
RonayR.GreenawayK.AnicichE. M.GalinskyA. D. (2012). The path to glory is paved with hierarchy: When hierarchical differentiation increases group effectiveness. Psychological Science, 23, 669–677.
StewartG. L.BarrickM. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 135–148.
41.
WagemanR. (2001). The meaning of interdependence. In TurnerM. E. (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 197–217). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
WangL. (2009). Money and fame: Vividness effects in the National Basketball Association. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22, 20–44.
43.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2009). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
