De<plt » past entreaties to organizational theorists and reseontchars to address levels issues more carefully, levels issues continue to arouse confusion and controversy within &e organizational literature. We highlight three alternative assumptions that underlie the specifica-tion of levels of theory throuj^out mganizational behavior: (a) homo-geneity within higher level units, (b) independence from higher Uvel tinits. and (c) heterogeneity within higher level ludts. These assump-tions influence the nature of theoretical constructs and propositions and should, ideally, also influence data collection, analysis, and in-terpretation. Greater attention to levels issues will strengthen orga-nizational theory development and research. Consider a levels-of-analysis issue arising in contemporary Ameri-can politics: How should electoral college votes be allocated In the pres-idential election? Currently, electoral college votes are allocated at the state level in all but two states (Maine and Nebraska). Thus, in 48 states,

Six hundred fifty-two employees composing 51 work teams participated in a study exam-ining relationships among team composition (ability and personality), team process (social cohesion), and team outcomes (team viability and team performance). Mean, variance, minimum, and maximum were 4 scoring methods used to operationalize the team composition variables to capture the team members ' characteristics. With respect to composition variables, teams higher in general mental ability (GMA), conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability received higher supervisor ratings for team performance. Teams higher in GMA, extraversion, and emotional stability received higher supervisor ratings for team viability. Results also show that extraversion and emotional stability were associated with team viability through social cohesion. Implica-tions and future research needs are discussed. The use of work teams has been described as pivotal to organizational transformation and renaissance (Goodman, Ravlin, & Schminke, 1987; Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990). Yet, even with an increasing number of organizations structuring work through the use of teams, we know relatively tittle about how the individuals com-prising a team affect intragroup processes and outcomes. This lack of understanding suggests that contemporary work organizations may not be obtaining the maximal benefits from work teams. The dominant way of thinking about teams is the input-process-output model (Gladstein, 1984; Guzzo & Shea, 1992; Hackman, 1987; McGrath, 1964). The model posits that a variety of inputs combine to influence intragroup processes, which in turn affect team outputs. Inputs have been grouped into three categories (Hackman, 1987): in-dividual-level factors (e.g., team-member attributes),

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

We investigated contextual organizational ambidexterity, defined as the capacity to simultaneously achieve alignment and adaptability at a business-unit level. Building on the leadership and organization context literatures, we argue that a context char-acterized by a combination of stretch, discipline, support, and trust facilitates contex-tual ambidexterity. Further, ambidexterity mediates the relationship between these contextual features and performance. Data collected from 4,195 individuals in 41 business units supported our hypotheses. A recurring theme in a variety of organizational literatures is that successful organizations in a dy-namic environment are ambidextrous—aligned and efficient in their management of today’s busi-ness demands, while also adaptive enough to changes in the environment that they will still be around tomorrow (Duncan, 1976; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). The simple idea behind the value of ambidexterity is that the demands on an organi-zation in its task environment are always to some degree in conflict (for instance, investment in cur-rent versus future projects, differentiation versus low-cost production), so there are always trade-offs to be made. Although these trade-offs can never entirely be eliminated, the most successful organi-zations reconcile them to a large degree, and in so doing enhance their long-term competitiveness. Authors have typically viewed ambidexterity in structural terms. According to Duncan (1976), who first used the term, organizations manage trade-offs between conflicting demands by putting in place “dual structures, ” so that certain business units—or groups within business units—focus on alignment, while others focus on adaptation (Duncan, 1976). We refer to this as structural ambidexterity.1 In-creasingly, however, organizational scholars have recognized the importance of simultaneously bal-ancing seemingly contradictory tensions and have begun to shift their focus from trade-off (either/or) to paradoxical (both/and) thinking (Bouchikhi,

Task conflict is usually associated with effective decisions, and relationship conflict is associated with poor decisions. The 2 conflict ypes are typically correlated in ongoing roups, however, which creates a prescriptive dilemma. Three explanations might account for this relationship--misattribution of task conflict as relationship conflict, harsh task conflict actics triggering relationship conflict, and misattri-bution of relationship conflict as task conflict. The authors found that intragroup trust moderates the relationship between task conflict and relationship conflict in 70 top management teams. This result supports the "misattribution f task conflict " explanation. The authors also found a weak effect hat is consistent with the argument that actical choices drive the association between the 2 conflict ypes. We infer that rust is a key to gaining the benefits of task conflict without suffering the costs of relationship conflict. Recent group process research distinguishes task conflict from relationship conflict and argues that the two have different perfor-

On behalf of:

An extensive body of literature indicates the importance of teamwork to the success of innovative projects. This growing awareness, that “good teamwork ” increases the success of in-novative projects, raises new questions: What is teamwork, and how can it be measured? Why and how is teamwork related to the success of innovative projects? How strong is the relation-ship between teamwork and various measures of project success such as performance or team member satisfaction? This article develops a comprehensive concept of the collaboration in teams, called Teamwork Quality (TWQ). The six facets of the TWQ construct, i.e., communication, coordination, balance of member contributions, mutual support, effort, and cohesion, are specified. Hypotheses regarding the relationship between TWQ and project success are tested using data from 575 team mem-bers, team leaders, and managers of 145 German software teams. The results of the structural equation models estimated show that TWQ (as rated by team members) is significantly associated with team performance as rated by team members, team leaders, and team-external managers. However, the mag-nitude of the relationship between TWQ and team performance varies by the perspective of the performance rater, i.e., manager vs. team leader vs. team members. Furthermore, TWQ shows a strong association with team members ’ personal success (i.e., work satisfaction and learning). (Teamwork; Innovation; Software Development) The importance of teams to the success of innovation pro-cesses is well documented in the theoretical literature. Popular approaches to new product development (Johne

We investigated the relationship between team empowerment and virtual team performance and the moderating role of the extent of face-to-face interaction using 35 sales and service virtual teams in a high-technology organization. Team empowerment was positively related to two independent assessments of virtual team performanceprocess improvement and customer satisfaction. Further, the number of face-to-face meetings moderated the relationship between team empowerment and process improvement: team empowerment was a stronger predictor for teams that met face-toface less, rather than more, frequently. Advances in communication and information technology have created new opportunities for organizations to build and manage virtual teams. Virtual teams are defined as groups of employees with unique skills, situated in distant locations, whose members must collaborate using technology across space and time to accomplish important organizational tasks Previous research has shown that various team types (for instance, project, management, parallel, and work) have different performance drivers

This study examined the mediating role of service climate in the prediction of employee performance and customer loyalty. Contact employees (N 342) from 114 service units (58 hotel front desks and 56 restaurants) provided information about organizational resources, engagement, and service climate. Furthermore, customers (N 1,140) from these units provided information on employee performance and customer loyalty. Structural equation modeling analyses were consistent with a full mediation model in which organizational resources and work engagement predict service climate, which in turn predicts employee performance and then customer loyalty. Further analyses revealed a potential reciprocal effect between service climate and customer loyalty. Implications of the study are discussed, together with limitations and suggestions for future research.

Methodological fit, an implicitly valued attribute of high-quality field research in organizations, has received little attention in the management literature. Fit refers to internal consistency among elements of a research project—research question, prior work, research design, and theoretical contribution. We introduce a contingency framework that relates prior work to the design of a research project, paying particular attention to the question of when to mix qualitative and quantitative data in a single research paper. We discuss implications of the framework for educating new field researchers. To advance management theory, a growing number of scholars are engaging in field research, studying real people, real problems, and real organizations. Although the potential relevance of field research is motivating, the research journey can be messy and inefficient, fraught with logistical hurdles and unexpected events. Researchers manage complex relationships with sites, cope with constraints on sample selection and timing of data collection, and often confront mid-project changes to planned research designs. With these additional challenges, the logic of a research design and how it supports the development of a specific theoretical contribution can be obscured or altered along the way in field research. Compared to experimental studies, analyses of published data sets, or computer simulations, achieving fit between the type of data collected in and the theoretical contribution of a given field research project is a dynamic and challenging process.