Search

Virtualization fundamentally changes how social relations form, but its effect on network structure in collaborative teams is poorly understood. This paper compares team networks from nine government-funded projects that were conducted virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic with 15 prepandemic projects from the same funding program. Results of our comparative analysis of 2,746 dyadic ties in 24 teams showed lower levels of network density, clustering, and structural cohesion in virtualized projects, indicating fragmented virtual teams. Furthermore, expressive networks, defined by the sharing of personal information, were affected more than instrumental networks, which revolve around the sharing of expert knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women are underrepresented in interorganizational research & development (R&D) projects. This affects the innovativeness of such projects, the representation of female perspectives in the design of innovations and the career opportunities of women. Such projects often emerge from preceding interorganizational R&D projects and are particularly successful when they do so. We argue that instrumental networking in ongoing projects is constitutive for the formation of such follow-up collaborations and, further, that stereotypical gender roles hinder women’s participation in instrumental interactions with their current project partners. Hence, we assume that unequal opportunities to participate in follow-up projects can be attributed to women’s lesser involvement in instrumental networks. Empirically, we test our argument using data on 2746 directed and weighted personal relationships across 24 interorganizational R&D projects. We show that instrumental interactions are crucial for who initiates follow-up projects with which current partner. Furthermore, we can show that the low participation of women in these activities can be better explained by gender roles than by gender homophily. In doing so, we reveal an important cause of women's under-representation in R&D. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent attempt to generate an updated ranking for the operational validity of 25 selection procedures, using a process labeled “conservative estimation” (Sackett et al., 2022), is flawed and misleading. When conservative estimation's treatment of range restriction (RR) is used, it is unclear if reported validity differences among predictors reflect (i) true differences, (ii) differential degrees of RR (different u values), (iii) differential correction for RR (no RR correction vs. RR correction), or (iv) some combination of these factors. We demonstrate that this creates bias and introduces confounds when ranking (or comparing) selection procedures. Second, the list of selection procedures being directly compared includes both predictor methods and predictor constructs, in spite of the substantial effect construct saturation has on validity estimates (e.g., Arthur & Villado, 2008). This causes additional confounds that cloud comparative interpretations. Based on these, and other, concerns we outline an alternative, “considered estimation” strategy when comparing predictors of job performance. Basic tenets include using RR corrections in the same manner for all predictors, parsing validities of selection methods by constructs, applying the logic beyond validities (e.g., ds), thoughtful reconsideration of prior meta‐analyses, considering sensitivity analyses, and accounting for nonindependence across studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A vital ingredient for the success of interorganizational collaboration projects is strong personal relationships among the partners. Their formation is structured by geographical distances between partners. In the corresponding research, it is assumed that geographic distance inhibits face-to-face interactions, which are highly effective for tie-formation. However, findings from adjacent fields of research suggest that greater distances can also be conducive to the development of personal relations. In this paper, we unravel these contradictions. Empirically, we examine the development of 2132 personal ties between individuals from 20 government-funded interorganizational innovation projects using a mixed-method design. Statistical analysis of the data reveals a U-shaped correlation between geographical and social proximity. Contrary to common assumptions, large geographical distances are found to be particularly conducive to forming relationships. The qualitative data explains this finding by identifying and systematically relating five practices which are associated with specific distances and which are (differently) effective for tie-formation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]