This paper introduces a radically different conceptualization of human capital resources that runs counter to the individual-level approaches that have dominated human capital theory for the last 50 years. We leverage insights from economics, strategy, human resources, and psychology to develop an integrated and holistic framework that defines the structure, function, levels, and combinations of human capital resources. This multidisciplinary framework redefines human capital resources as individual or unit-level capacities based on individual knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) that are accessible for unit-relevant purposes. The framework and definition offer three broad contributions. First, multidisciplinary communication is facilitated by providing precise definitions and distinctions between individual differences, KSAOs, human capital, human capital resources, and strategic human capital resources. Second, given that human capital resources originate in individuals' KSAOs, multiple distinct types of human capital resources exist at individual and collective levels, and these types are much more diverse than the historical generic-specific distinction. Third, the multiple types of human capital

Despite the lengthy history of team cohesion-performance research, little is known about their reciprocal relationships over time. Using meta-analysis, we synthesize findings from 17 CLP design studies, and analyze their results using SEM. Results support that team cohesion and performance are related reciprocally with each other over time. We then used longitudinal data from 205 members of 57 student teams who competed in a complex business simulation over 10 weeks, to test: (a) whether team cohesion and performance were related reciprocally over multiple time periods, (b) the relative magnitude of those relationships, and (c) whether they were stable over time. We also considered the influence of team members' academic competence and degree of shared leadership on these dynamics. As anticipated, cohesion and performance were related positively, and reciprocally, over time. However, the cohesion → performance relationship was significantly higher than the performance → cohesion relationship. Moreover, the cohesion → performance relationship grew stronger over time whereas the performance → cohesion relationship remained fairly consistent over time. As expected, shared leadership related positively to team cohesion but not directly to their performance; whereas average team member academic competence related positively to team performance but was unrelated to team cohesion. Finally, we conducted and report a replication using a second sample of students competing in a business simulation. Our earlier substantive relationships were mostly replicated, and we illustrated the dynamic temporal properties of shared leadership. We discuss these findings in terms of theoretical importance, applied implications, and directions for future research.

Pay dispersion in interdependent work settings is virtually universally argued to be detrimental to performance. We contend, however, that these arguments often confound inequality with inequity, thereby overestimating inequity concerns. Consequently, we adopt a sorting (attraction and retention) perspective to differentiate between pay dispersion that is used to secure valued employee inputs and pay dispersion that is not so used. We find that the former is positively related to interdependent team performance, the latter has no effect or is detrimental, and the approach itself helps to reconcile the pay dispersion literature's disparate results. Curvilinearity tests reveal potential constraints on the sorting argument.

No abstract

Peir ó, and Truxillo (2011) correctly point out that most studies in psychology and management use perceptual measures of overqualification. We extend their work by showing that subjective overqualification and objective overqualification are two separate and unique constructs and that each can add to the understanding of employee behavior. To demonstrate the value of considering both objective and subjective overqualification, we explore the causal relationship between the two. Next, we highlight some advantages of using cognitive ability as a basis for measuring overqualification. We then discuss intentional mismatch, defined as broad satisfaction despite overqualification when working conditions provide a fit with a worker's values and interests outside the job (Maltarich, Nyberg, & Reilly, 2010).