Martine R. Haas

To Share or Not to Share? Professional Norms, Reference Groups, and Information Withholding Among Life Scientists

Why do scientists withhold information from colleagues, violating the professional norm of sharing? Norm violations are usually attributed to individual interests that lead scientists to reject professional norms. In contrast, we take the view that norm violations can occur when professional norms are valued but it is difficult to ascertain the appropriate course of professional conduct. This view suggests that scientists may look to cues from their professional reference groups to resolve sociological ambivalence arising from conflicting role expectations. We analyze a data set of 1,251 geneticists and other life scientists from 100 U.S. universities and find that beyond individual-level explanations, information withholding is influenced by the behaviors of peers as well as the attitudes of superiors in the profession. We discuss the implications for the professions literature, theories of organizational learning, and knowledge management initiatives in firms.

Microfoundations of Knowledge Recombination: Peripheral Knowledge and Breakthrough Innovation in Teams

Abstract Strategy scholars have long argued that breakthrough innovation is generated by recombining knowledge from distant domains. Even if firms have the ability to access and absorb knowledge from distant domains, however, they may fail to pay attention to such knowledge because it is seemingly irrelevant to their tasks. We draw attention to this problem of knowledge relevance and develop a theoretical model to illuminate how ideas from seemingly irrelevant (i.e., peripheral) domains can generate breakthrough innovation through the cognitive process of analogical reasoning, as well as the conditions under which this is more likely to occur. We situate our theoretical model in the context of teams in order to develop insight into the microfoundations of knowledge recombination within firms. Our model reveals paradoxical requirements for teams that help to explain why breakthrough innovation is so difficult.

Attention allocation and online knowledge sharing within organizations

Why do individuals allocate attention to specific problems in organizations? Viewing attention allocation as a matching process between knowledge providers and problems, we examine knowledge sharin...

Perspective-Rethinking Teams: From Bounded Membership to Dynamic Participation

Teams have long been defined by boundedness-a clear distinction between members and nonmembers. Yet as we argue in this perspective paper, the distinction between members and nonmembers is often blurred in todays teams, as a result of trends toward increasing team fluidity, overlap, and dispersion. These trends offer potential organizational benefits, but the resulting boundary blurring can undermine team effectiveness. Moreover, boundary blurring calls into question many of the basic assumptions underpinning our theoretical and empirical research on teams. Accordingly, it is time to rethink our fundamental conceptualization of teams and to revisit our approaches to studying them. We propose a shift from viewing teams as clearly bounded groups of members toward instead viewing teams as dynamic hubs of participants. Reconceptualizing teams in this way opens up new avenues for theory development and offers important implications for future empirical research on teams.

Rethinking Team Boundaries

Boundedness – the distinction between members and non-members – has long been a central defining feature of a team. In this perspective paper, we start by discussing classic conceptualizations of team boundaries, which emphasize the importance of boundary clarity. Yet many teams are more fluid, more overlapping and more dispersed − and consequently their boundaries are less clear − than ever before. We review recent literature that begins to illuminate the changing nature of team boundaries, and argue that fluidity, overlap, and dispersion have important implications for teams through their effects on members’ shared identity and mutual understanding. We propose that today’s teams can be usefully characterized as tightly versus loosely bounded, rather than as clearly bounded by definition, and conclude by examining the implications of the changing nature of team boundaries for future theoretical and empirical research on teams.

FAIL MORE FAIL BETTER

Should we be allowed to flop en route to success? Yes, say Julian Birkinshaw and Martine Haas, who explain the benefits of ‘smart failure’

COSMOPOLITANS AND LOCALS: KNOWLEDGE GATHERING AND PROJECT QUALITY IN TRANSNATIONAL TEAMS.

This paper examines the uncertain effects of knowledge gathering on project quality in transnational teams. Ordinal logit analysis of project quality ratings from 96 teams and survey data from 550 ...