Dear María
Based on Amit's suggestion it comes to my mind the work of Gersick. According to this author, groups go thru two stages (as opposed to Tuckman's group development model): inertia and revolution. The latter may be expressed as those "major changes" made within the group while it progresses toward its goal.
It's a long shot but you could check the following papers (it might help to establish/calculate a better measure for team tenure):
1) Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Gersick, C. (1989) AMJ 32 (2)
2) Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Gersick, C. (1988) AMJ 31 (1)
Good luck,
C. Rodeiro
De: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv en nombre de Gal, Amit
Enviado el: mar 29/07/2008 23:47
Para: OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Asunto: Re: team tenure measure
Interesting question. I have some thoughts, but they are not based on any literature that i am aware of).
First I agree that average tenure might not be the right operationalization.
For example, I think that team tenure can be in some cases greater than the maximum of the individual members' tenure. for example, if a certain team exists for a long time, and a member is replaced once in a while in a way which does not change the teams' routines, culture, the nature of tasks etc... in such cases, even if, eventually, the "oldest" member is replaced, the team itself does not get "younger" as a result.
So I would argue that team tenure is the time that passed since the last major change in team membership and/or way of work. the definition of "Major change" maybe idiosyncratic: some teams would not be considerably affected by a turnover of 1 person per year, while some teams would.
in your example, changing all team members but one is an abrupt change, and hence the team tenure would be a week. your solution seem to approximate this approach if abrupt changes are relatively frequent, in which case it is reasonable to assume that some team members have been in the team prior to that change event, and hence their individual tenure should be disregarded. However, your proposed measure don't deal well with contexts in which abrupt changes for the team are rare.
this is my 2 cents. and again - not based on any literature, so take it with a grain of salt.
hope it helps,
amit
________________________________
From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Maria J. Mendez [mariajmendez@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: 29 July 2008 23:28
To: OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Subject: team tenure measure
Hello - I am looking for a measure of team tenure for a dissertation on team leadership.
Prior research uses the average tenure of individual team members. However, the average will not be representative of the team's tenure in certain cases (for instance when one member has been part of the team for 20 years and all others started last week).
1) I would strongly appreciate your impressions regarding the validity of an alternative measure I am considering: calculating the average of individual members' tenures BUT only of the most recent half of the members in the team. This measure would reduce the problem mentioned in the example above, and would take into account the importance of the effects of newcomers on the roles, norms, and culture of a team.
2) I would also appreciate if you could direct me to publications where alternative measures to the average could have been used, such as the median (I couldn't find any).
Thank you for your help!
Maria
Maria J. Mendez
Doctoral Candidate in Management
New Mexico State University
mmaria@nmsu.edu<mailto:mmaria@nmsu.edu>