The Effects Of Communication Networks And Turnover On TMS Argote Et Al

This article was downloaded by: [134.88.77.64] On: 30 April 2018, At: 07:05 Publisher: Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) INFORMS is located in Maryland, USA

Organization Science

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://pubsonline.informs.org

The Effects of Communication Networks and Turnover on Transactive Memory and Group Performance Linda Argote, Brandy L. Aven, Jonathan Kush

To cite this article: Linda Argote, Brandy L. Aven, Jonathan Kush (2018) The Effects of Communication Networks and Turnover on Transactive Memory and Group Performance. Organization Science 29(2):191-206. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1176

Full terms and conditions of use: http://pubsonline.informs.org/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used only for the purposes of research, teaching, and/or private study. Commercial use or systematic downloading (by robots or other automatic processes) is prohibited without explicit Publisher approval, unless otherwise noted. For more information, contact permissions@informs.org.

The Publisher does not warrant or guarantee the article’s accuracy, completeness, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Descriptions of, or references to, products or publications, or inclusion of an advertisement in this article, neither constitutes nor implies a guarantee, endorsement, or support of claims made of that product, publication, or service.

Copyright © 2018, INFORMS

Please scroll down for article—it is on subsequent pages

INFORMS is the largest professional society in the world for professionals in the fields of operations research, management science, and analytics. For more information on INFORMS, its publications, membership, or meetings visit http://www.informs.org

 

 

ORGANIZATION SCIENCE Vol. 29, No. 2, March–April 2018, pp. 191–206

http://pubsonline.informs.org/journal/orsc/ ISSN 1047-7039 (print), ISSN 1526-5455 (online)

The Effects of Communication Networks and Turnover on Transactive Memory and Group Performance Linda Argote,a Brandy L. Aven,a Jonathan Kushb a Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213; b Charlton College of Business, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, Massachusetts 02747 Contact: argote@cmu.edu, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4149-6968 (LA); aven@cmu.edu, http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7086-5876 (BLA); jkush@umassd.edu, http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4872-8650 (JK)

Received: May 28, 2015 Revised: March 8, 2016; December 11, 2016; June 25, 2017; August 17, 2017 Accepted: September 4, 2017 Published Online in Articles in Advance: March 30, 2018

https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1176

Copyright: © 2018 INFORMS

Abstract. We theorize that the effect of membership turnover on group processes and performance depends on a group’s communication network. We describe two mecha- nisms through which communication networks affect group performance: (1) the number of direct communication paths and (2) the clarity of the coordination logic. These mech- anisms map onto two network dimensions: density, which affects a group’s behavior through the number of available communication paths, and centralization, which affects a group’s behavior through the clarity of the coordination logic. We empirically analyze the effects of turnover on the performance of fully connected all-channel networks and hub- and-spoke or wheel networks in an experiment of 109 four-person groups performing two collaborative problem-solving tasks. The greater number of direct communication paths enabled fully connected groups with stable membership to develop stronger transactive memory systems (TMSs) and perform better than fully connected groups that experienced turnover. By contrast, the clear coordination logic of perfectly centralized groups that expe- rienced turnover facilitated more frequent dyadic communication, which enabled them to strengthen their TMSs, incorporate the contributions of new members, and improve their performance. Thus, our results indicate that communication networks condition the effect of membership turnover on group processes and performance.

Funding: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation [Grants 1111750 and 1459963] and the Center for Organizational Learning, Innovation and Knowledge at the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University.

Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1176.

Keywords: social networks • turnover • transactive memory • group performance

Introduction Organizational activity comprises the coordination of individuals to solve complex problems. Group mem- bers must identify the expertise of others, access infor- mation held by different members, and coordinate that information to accomplish shared goals. Mem- ber turnover, the exit of an incumbent member and introduction of a new member, in groups can com- plicate the identification and coordination of expertise and information (Arrow and McGrath 1995). Groups with stable membership are able to learn each other’s skills and expertise, allocate tasks to the most qualified members, and coordinate the interdependent activi- ties of their members. When turnover occurs, however, incumbent members know little about the expertise and skills of the new member, and coordination can become challenging (Lewis et al. 2007). Yet new mem- bers can nonetheless be a source of new ideas and per- spectives that improve group performance (Choi and Thompson 2005). We theorize that the effect of turnover on group

performance depends on the group’s communication network. From a network perspective, groups can be

categorized by their structural features—in particular, their centralization (Katz et al. 2004, Leavitt 1951, Rulke and Galaskiewicz 2000) and their density (Freeman 1979, Friedkin 1981, Balkundi and Harrison 2006). Cen- tralization increases for a group as the inequality or variance in the number of connections group members have to others increases. A group’s density increases as the ratio of actual to potential connections increases.

We identify two mechanisms through which a group’s communication network affects performance: (1) the number of direct communication paths avail- able to group members and (2) the clarity of the coordination logic. The first mechanism maps onto network density, which affects a group’s behavior through the number of available communication paths. High levels of density in communication networks allow team members to communicate directly with one another. The second mechanism maps onto net- work centralization, which affects a group’s behavior through the clarity of the coordination logic. Central- ized communication networks direct how information is shared and inform how members coordinate (Blau 1974, Bunderson and Boumgarden 2010).

191

D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

i nf

or m

s. or

g by

[ 13

4. 88

.7 7.

64 ]

on 3

0 A

pr il

2 01

8, a

t 07

:0 5

. F or

p er

so na

l us

e on

ly , a

ll r

ig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

 

 

Argote, Aven, and Kush: The Effects of Turnover on Group Performance 192 Organization Science, 2018, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 191–206, © 2018 INFORMS

Figure 1. Fully Connected and Perfectly Centralized Communication Networks

(a) (b)

A

C

DB

A

C

B D

Notes. Panel (a) represents the fully connected communication net- work. Panel (b) represents the perfectly centralized communication network. C is the central member, whereas A, B, and D are peripheral members.

We focus on the two network structures that max- imize one structural dimension while minimizing the other: a perfectly centralized or “hub-and-spoke” net- work that has the highest degree of centralization and minimizes density (see Figure 1), and a fully con- nected, “all-channel” network that maximizes den- sity and minimizes centralization. These two network structures not only allow the investigation of cen- tralization and density in tandem but are also struc- tures common in organizational settings. For exam- ple, programming groups’ communication networks have often been found to be fully connected, where members can communicate directly with any other member in an open-source setting (Tsay et al. 2014). By contrast, particularly in proprietary software, pro- gramming groups generally have a perfectly central- ized communication network where one central mem- ber acts as the “software architect,” and other members can communicate directly only with this central mem- ber (Kruchten 2008, Bosch and Bosch-Sijtsema 2010). In addition, even though project groups in organizations commonly communicate in a fully connected manner, groups engaged in covert projects typically communi- cate in a centralized fashion (Aven 2015).

In the case of stable group membership, high cen- tralization, such as in our perfectly centralized groups, limits direct communication among members through their restricted communication network, which hin- ders members from learning about others’ expertise. Centralized communication networks also force mem- bers to coordinate in a particular manner, irrespective of members’ preferences and abilities. Rather than pro- vide members with the opportunity to customize their coordination logic, centralized group members must channel information to the central member(s), who then orchestrate the group’s activities. Hence, the coor- dination logic in centralized groups is independent of the particular members and their attributes.

When turnover occurs, the communication network of perfectly centralized groups improves the group’s

ability to integrate a new member. The coordina- tion logic of perfectly centralized networks is read- ily discernible by both incumbent and new members, which enhances their ability to contribute to the group (Bunderson and Boumgarden 2010, Morrison 2002). Because members’ roles in perfectly centralized groups are not customized to individual members, it is more likely that the new member can adequately perform the activities of the departing member in centralized than in decentralized groups. Finally, the restricted com- munication pathways in centralized networks require reliance on the few existing pathways to coordinate, which reduces the likelihood that any communica- tion pathway and its respective member are neglected. These factors enable a perfectly centralized group to incorporate the contributions of a new member and improve group outcomes for tasks involving problem solving and creativity (e.g., Wells and Pelz 1966, Choi and Thompson 2005).

When membership is stable, high density in com- munication networks, such as in the fully connected groups, enables members to establish a strong trans- active memory system (TMS), a collective system for encoding, storing, and retrieving information (Wegner 1987, Lewis and Herndon 2011). Because of fully connected group members’ greater ability to communi- cate directly with other members, group members are able to learn about each other’s expertise and, in turn, develop a shared cognitive map of expertise. In addi- tion, fully connected networks allow members to tailor the group’s coordination logic to account for each mem- ber’s preferences and abilities.

Although fully connected communication networks facilitate group performance by encouraging the devel- opment of a strong TMS, fully connected networks can also hinder the integration of new group members when turnover occurs. New members often do not have the same attributes and knowledge as departing mem- bers, which makes the substitution of a new member challenging for these groups because their coordina- tion logic is tailored to the original members’ unique abilities and characteristics. Furthermore, the group’s coordination logic cannot be readily observed by new members, which impairs their ability to contribute to the group.