This paper builds synthesized coherence (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997) across disciplines such as organizational behavior, personnel psychology, entrepreneurship, project management, and strategic management by developing a temporal team selection framework that delineates three temporal team selection processes (i.e., simultaneous selection, sequential selection, and substitution selection). Of these three processes, sequential selection, which could either be constraint-driven or coevolution-driven, is a new conceptualization. This framework speaks to the broader research stream on membership dynamics, and therefore its key constructs such as arithmetic of membership change (Arrow & McGrath, 1993) and temporal patterning of membership change (Arrow & McGrath, 1993) have been systematically applied to the temporal team selection processes. Finally, the implications of this theorizing for both research and practice are discussed.
AlgeB. J.WiethoffC.KleinH. J. (2003). When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 26–37.
2.
AnconaD. G.OkhuysenG. A.PerlowL. A. (2001). Taking time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review, 26, 512–529.
3.
ArrowH.McGrathJ. E. (1993). Membership matters: How member change and continuity affect small group structure, process, and performance. Small Group Research, 24, 334–361.
4.
ArrowH.McGrathJ. E. (1995). Membership dynamics in groups at work: A theoretical framework. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 373–373.
5.
ArrowH.PooleM. S.HenryK. B.WheelanS.MorelandR. (2004). Time, change, and development: The temporal perspective on groups. Small Group Research, 35, 73–105.
6.
BallardD. I.TschanF.WallerM. J. (2008). All in the timing: Considering time at multiple stages of group research. Small Group Research, 39, 328–351.
7.
BeckmanC. M.BurtonM. D. (2008). Founding the future: Path dependence in the evolution of top management teams from founding to IPO. Organization Science, 19, 3–24.
8.
BeckmanC. M.BurtonM. D.O’ReillyC. (2007). Early teams: The impact of team demography on VC financing and going public. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 147–173.
9.
BirleyS. (1985). The role of networks in entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 107–117.
10.
BjørnåliE.GulbrandsenM. (2010). Exploring board formation and evolution of board composition in academic spin-offs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 92–112.
11.
BradleyJ.WhiteB. J.MenneckeB. E. (2003). Teams and tasks: A temporal framework for the effects of interpersonal interventions on team performance. Small Group Research, 34, 353–387.
12.
CallM. L.NybergA. J.PloyhartR. E.WeekleyJ. (2015). The dynamic nature of collective turnover and unit performance: The impact of time, quality, and replacements. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1208–1232.
13.
ChandlerG. N.HonigB.WiklundJ. (2005). Antecedents, moderators, and performance consequences of membership change in new venture teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 705–725.
14.
ChenG. (2005). Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 101–116.
15.
CiniM. A.MorelandR. L.LevineJ. M. (1993). Group staffing levels and responses to prospective and new group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 723–734.
16.
CohenS. G.BaileyD. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290.
17.
CongerJ.LawlerE. (2001). Building a high-performing board: How to choose the right members. Business Strategy Review, 12, 11–19.
18.
ConnerleyM. L.MaelF. A. (2001). The importance and invasiveness of student team selection criteria. Journal of Management Education, 25, 471–494.
19.
CrockerA.EckardtR. (2013). A multilevel investigation of individual- and unit-level human capital complementarities. Journal of Management, 40, 509–530.
20.
CroninM. A. (2015). Advancing the science of dynamics in groups and teams. Organizational Psychology Review, 5, 267–269.
21.
CroninM. A.WeingartL. R.TodorovaG. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet?Academy of Management Annals, 5, 571–612.
22.
CrossanM.CunhaM. P.VeraD.CunhaJ. (2005). Time and organizational improvisation. Academy of Management Review, 30, 129–145.
23.
ElfenbeinH. A.O’ReillyC. A. (2007). Fitting in: The effects of relational demography and person–culture fit on group process and performance. Group & Organization Management, 32, 109–142.
24.
FelinT.FossN. J.PloyhartR. E. (2015). The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. The Academy of Management Annals, 9, 575–632.
25.
ForbesD. P.BorchertP. S.Zellmer-BruhnM. E.SapienzaH. J. (2006). Entrepreneurial team formation: An exploration of new member addition. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 30, 225–248.
26.
ForsterW.JansenK. (2010). Co-creating new ventures: Attraction, search, and uncertainty in founding partnership formation. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 30, 1–15.
27.
FunkC. A.KulikB. W. (2012). Happily ever after: Toward a theory of late stage group performance. Group & Organization Management, 37, 36–66.
28.
GeorgeJ. M.JonesG. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26, 657–684.
29.
GoodwinG. F. (1999). Predicting performance in U. S. Army Special Forces teams: Staffing and composition issues (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, State College.
30.
HaleD.PloyhartR. E.ShepherdW. (2016). A two-phase longitudinal model of a turnover event: Disruption, recovery rates, and moderators of collective performance. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 906–929.
31.
HausknechtJ. P.HolwerdaJ. A. (2013). When does employee turnover matter? Dynamic member configurations, productive capacity, and collective performance. Organization Science, 24, 210–225.
32.
HennekeD.LuthjeC. (2007). Interdisciplinary heterogeneity as a catalyst for product innovativeness of entrepreneurial teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16, 121–132.
33.
HerndonB.LewisK. (2015). Applying sequence methods to the study of team temporal dynamics. Organizational Psychology Review, 5, 318–332.
34.
HoganJ.HollandB. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100–112.
35.
HollenbeckJ. R.DeRueD. S.GuzzoR. (2004). Bridging the gap between I/O and research and HR practice: Improving team composition, team training, and team task design. Human Resource Management, 43, 353–366.
36.
HollingsheadA. B. (2001). Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1080–1089.
HumphreyS. E.MorgesonF. P.MannorM. J. (2009). Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 48–61.
39.
IlgenD. R.HollenbeckJ. R.JohnsonM.JundtD. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input–process–output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.
40.
KichukS. L.WiesnerW. H. (1997). The Big Five personality factors and team performance: Implications for selecting successful product design teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14, 195–221.
41.
KirkmanB. L.RosenB.TeslukP. E.GibsonC. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 175–192.
42.
KlimoskiR.JonesR. G. (1995). Staffing for effective group decision making: Key issues in matching people and task. In GuzzoR. A.SalasE. (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 292–332). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
43.
KlimoskiR. J.ZukinL. B. (1999). Selection and staffing for team effectiveness. In SundstromE. (Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness (pp. 63–94). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
44.
KozlowskiS. W. J.IlgenD. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.
45.
LarsonA.StarrJ. A. (1993). A network model of organization formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17, 5–15.
46.
LePineJ. A.BuckmanB. R.CrawfordE. R.MethotJ. R. (2011). A review of research on personality in teams: Accounting for pathways spanning levels of theory and analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 311–330.
47.
LevineJ. M.MorelandR. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585–634.
48.
LewisK.BelliveauM.HerndonB.KellerJ. (2007). Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 159–178.
49.
LipnackJ.StampsJ. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time and organizations with technology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
50.
LockeK.Golden-BiddleK. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and “problematizing” in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1023–1062.
51.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376.
52.
MartinsL. L.GilsonL. L.MaynardM. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here?Journal of Management, 6, 805–835.
53.
MathieuJ. E.MaynardM. T.RappT. L.GilsonL. L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476.
54.
MathieuJ. E.TannenbaumS. I.DonsbachJ. S.AlligerG. M. (2013). Achieving optimal team composition for success. In SalasE. (Ed.), Developing and enhancing high-performance teams: Evidence-based practices and advice (pp. 520–551). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
55.
MaynardM. T.GilsonL. L. (2014). The role of shared mental model development in understanding virtual team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 39, 13–32.
56.
MaynardM. T.MathieuJ. E.RappT. L.GilsonL. L. (2012). Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 342–365.
57.
McNameeM. (2010). Rules, fairness, and the apparent duty to entertain in professional commodified sport. Sports, Ethics, and Philosophy, 4, 235–238.
58.
MohammedS.Cannon-BowersJ.FooS. C. (2010). Selection for team membership: A contingency and multilevel perspective. In FarrJ. L.TippinsN. T. (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 801–822). New York, NY: Routledge.
59.
MohammedS.MathieuJ. E.BartlettA. L. (2002). Technical-administrative task performance, leadership task performance, and contextual performance: Considering the influence of team- and task-related composition variables. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 795–814.
60.
MorelandR. L.LevineJ. M. (1988). Group dynamics over time: Development and socialization in small groups. In McGrathJ. E. (Ed.), The social psychology of time: New perspectives (pp. 151–181). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
61.
MorelandR. L.LevineJ. M. (2003). Group composition: Explaining similarities and differences among group members. In HoggM. A.CooperJ. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 367–380). London, UK: SAGE.
62.
MorganB. B.SalasE.GlickmanA. S. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. Journal of General Psychology, 120, 277–291.
63.
MorgesonF. P.ReiderM. H.CampionM. A. (2005). Selecting individuals in team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58, 583–611.
64.
MunyonT. P.SummersJ. K.FerrisG. R. (2011). Team staffing in modes in organizations: Strategic considerations on individual and cluster hiring approaches. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 228–242.
65.
NadkarniS.ChenJ. (2014). Bridging yesterday, today, and tomorrow: CEO temporal focus, environmental dynamism, and rate of new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1810–1833.
66.
NybergA. J.PloyhartR. E. (2013). Context-emergent collective turnover (CET) theory: A theory of collective turnover. Academy of Management Review, 38, 1–23.
67.
O’LearyM. B.MortensenM.WoolleyA. W. (2011). Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Academy of Management Review, 36, 461–478.
68.
O’ReillyC.CaldwellD.BarnettW. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37.
69.
OrvisK. L.ZaccaroS. J. (2008). Team composition and member selection: Optimizing teams for virtual collaboration. In NemiroJ.BeyerleinM. M.BradleyL.BeyerleinS. (Eds.), The handbook of high-performance virtual teams: A toolkit for collaborating across boundaries (pp. 243–262). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
70.
ParkerS. C. (2009). Can cognitive biases explain venture team homophily?Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3, 67–83.
71.
PelledL. H.LedfordG. E.MohrmanS. A. (1998). Individual demographic dissimilarity and organizational inclusion: A field investigation. In Academy of Management proceedings (pp. A1–A17). San Diego, CA: Academy of Management.
72.
PintoJ. (2014). Entrepreneurs’ cognitive biases and heuristics in entrepreneurial team recruitment. In Academy of Management best paper proceedings (p. 13976). Philadelphia, PA: Academy of Management.
73.
PloyhartR. E. (2006). Staffing in the 21st century: New challenges and strategic opportunities. Journal of Management, 32, 868–897.
74.
PloyhartR. E.WeekleyJ. A.RamseyJ. (2009). The consequences of human resource stocks and flows: A longitudinal examination of unit service orientation and unit effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 996–1015.
75.
RinkF.KaneA. A.EllemersN.van der VegtG. (2013). Team receptivity to newcomers: Five decades of evidence and future research themes. The Academy of Management Annals, 7, 247–293.
76.
RoeR. A.GockelC.MeyerB. (2012). Time and change in teams: Where we are and where we are moving. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 629–656.
77.
RoureJ. B.KeeleyR. H. (1990). Predictors of success in new technology based ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 201–220.
78.
RoureJ. B.MaidiqueM. A. (1986). Linking prefunding factors and high-technology venture success: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 295–306.
ShivdasaniA.YermackD. (1999). CEO involvement in the selection of new board members: An empirical analysis. Journal of Finance, 54, 1829–1853.
81.
SonnentagS. (2012). Time in organizational research: Catching up on a long neglected topic in order to improve theory. Organizational Psychology Review, 2, 361–368.
82.
SteinerI. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press.
83.
StevensM. J.CampionM. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for team-work. Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20, 503–530.
84.
StevensM. J.CampionM. A. (1999). Staffing work teams: Development and validation of a selection test for teamwork settings. Journal of Management, 25, 207–228.
85.
SummersJ. K.HumphreyS. E.FerrisG. R. (2012). Team member change, flux in coordination, and performance: Effects of strategic core roles, information transfer, and cognitive ability. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 314–338.
86.
SwensenS. J.DillingJ. A.MillinerD. S.ZimmermanR. S.MaplesW. J.LindsayM. E.BartleyG. B. (2009). Quality: The Mayo Clinic approach. American Journal of Medical Quality, 24, 428–440.
87.
TannenbaumS. I.MathieuJ. E.SalasE.CohenD. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough?Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 2–24.
88.
TuckmanB. W. (1965). Development sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.
89.
TyranK. L.GibsonC. B. (2008). Is what you see, what you get? The relationship among surface- and deep-level heterogeneity characteristics, group efficacy, and team reputation. Group & Organization Management, 33, 46–76.
90.
Van OorschotK. E.AkkermansH.SenguptaK.van WassenhoveL. N. (2013). Anatomy of a decision trap in complex new product development projects. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 285–307.
91.
VinkenburgC. J.JansenP. G. W.DriesN.PepermansR. (2014). Arena: A critical conceptual framework of top management selection. Group & Organization Management, 39, 33–68.
92.
VohoraA.WrightM.LockettA. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147–175.
93.
WegnerD. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In MullenG.GoethalsG. (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
94.
WerbelJ. D.JohnsonD. J. (2001). The use of person–group fit for employment selection: A missing link in person–environment fit. Human Resource Management, 40, 227–240.
95.
WestphalJ. D.ZajacE. J. (1995). Who shall govern? CEO/Board power, demographic similarity, and new director selection. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 60–83.
96.
WongS.-S.BurtonR. M. (2000). Virtual teams: What are their characteristics, and impact on team performance. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 6, 339–360.
97.
ZaccaroS. J.DiRosaG. A. (2012). The processes of team staffing: A review of relevant studies. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 27, 197–229.
