Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 311

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Configural Theory of Team Processes: Accounting for the Structure of Taskwork and Teamwork

Crawford, Eean R., LePine, Jeffery A.·2013·Academy of Management Review

Abstract

Theories of team processes have focused on content and temporal relevance, while largely ignoring implications of structure. We apply social network concepts to propose theory that articulates structural configurations of taskwork and teamwork processes in terms of closure, centralization, and subgrouping. Our theory challenges the conventional view that increases in team processes are inherently and uniformly beneficial and explains how structural configurations involve trade-offs that must be acknowledged in our research and practice.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/amr.2011.0206

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Crawford, E. R., & LePine, J. A.
Venue
Academy of Management Review
Published
2013-01
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
32-48
ISSN
  • 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3807
OpenAlex
W2146734084
Cited by
311
References
9
FWCI
20.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.