Coordination is achieved by standardizing the task. As there are no handoffs between team members, there is no need for the team to come together to ensure that handoffs go smoothly or to resolve joint issues. In such jobs, the outcome of all the workers is combined to reach the team’s target. Examples would include insurance claim reviewers, call center responders, appliance repair mechanics, and some sales teams. With Pooled interdependence virtual hybrid team members work independently of each other. There are three levels of team interdependence, pooled, sequential and reciprocal, each requiring different levels of interaction and thus the frequency of meeting face-to-face. The most critical of those factors is the type of work the team does and it is this factor that I address in this post. This post answers the question, what should the frequency of face-to-face meetings be? The answer depends on three factors 1) the type of tasks of the virtual hybrid team, 2) the degree of a shared view among team members, and 3) the strength of relationship among team members ( Maznevski). I defined Hybrid teams as teams that 1) meet face to face periodically, 2) meet in pairs when appropriate, and 3) are intentional about engaging in interpersonal as well as transactional interactions during online meetings. So, our results suggest that organizations should develop capabilities that fit their workflow and their relative risk of losing star employees versus non‑stars.In a previous post, I wrote about how successful virtual teams benefit by functioning as #Hybrid teams. Conversely, we also find that the loss of a non‑star player is more damaging when teams use a more team-focused workflow, but that capability for improving performance of a team’s existing players mitigates this damage. Does an organization’s way of arranging its workflow affect the amount of damage done when a key employee quits? Does the answer depend upon whether the departing employee is a star performer? Does it depend upon the organization’s capability for recruiting high-potential replacements from other organizations, or its capability for improving the performance of its existing employees? By analyzing data from NBA basketball teams, we find that the loss of a star player is more damaging when teams use a more individual-focused workflow, but that capability for recruiting high-potential players mitigates this damage. Some organizations use more individual-focused workflows, where the performance of each employee is relatively independent of the performance of coworkers, while others use more team-focused workflows, where the performance of each employee depends critically on the performance of coworkers. Managerial Summary: Different organizations arrange their workflows in different ways. Conversely, we find that losing non-star players is more damaging under conditions of greater reciprocal interdependence and that internal development capabilities are more effective for mitigating this damage. We find that losing star players is more damaging under conditions of greater pooled interdependence and that external acquisition capabilities are more effective for mitigating this damage.

We also examine how workflow interdependence influences the relative effectiveness of two capabilities for obtaining resources-external acquisition versus internal development.

Exploiting a rule change that exogenously shifted the workflow interdependence of NBA basketball teams, we examine how the benefit provided by a resource depends upon the way it is deployed in an organization's workflow. Research Summary: An underresearched and undertheorized factor in the resource-based view's VRIO acronym is the “O”: organizational deployment.

Sequential interdependence