A Network Approach to the Formation of Self-assembled Teams

  • Rustom Ichhaporia
  • Diego Gómez-ZaráEmail author
  • Leslie DeChurch
  • Noshir Contractor
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 882)


Which individuals in a network make the most appealing teammates? Which invitations are most likely to be accepted? And which are most likely to be rejected? This study explores the factors that are most likely to explain the selection, acceptance, and rejection of invitations in self-assembling teams. We conducted a field study with 780 participants using an online platform that enables people to form teams. Participants completed an initial survey assessing traits, relationships, and skills. Next, they searched for and invited others to join a team. Recipients could then accept, reject, or ignore invitations. Using Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGMs), we studied how traits and social networks influence teammate choices. Our results demonstrated that (a) agreeable leaders with high psychological collectivism send invitations most frequently, (b) previous collaborators, leaders, competent workers, females, and younger individuals receive the most invitations, and (c) rejections are concentrated in the hands of a few.


Social network analysis ERGM Team formation 


  1. 1.
    Aldrich, H.E., Kim, P.H.: Small worlds, infinite possibilities? How social networks affect entrepreneurial team formation and search. Strat. Entrep. J. 1(1–2), 147–165 (2007). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burt, R.S.: Structural holes and good ideas. Am. J. Sociol. 110(2), 349–399 (2004). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burt, R.S., et al.: Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Contractor, N.S., Wasserman, S., Faust, K.: Testing multitheoretical, multilevel hypotheses about organizational networks: an analytic framework and empirical example. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31(3), 681–703 (2006). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donnellan, M.B., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M., Lucas, R.E.: The mini-ipip scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychol. Assess. 18(2), 192 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faraj, S., Johnson, S.L.: Network exchange patterns in online communities. Organ. Sci. 22(6), 1464–1480 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferris, G.R., Treadway, D.C., Kolodinsky, R.W., Hochwarter, W.A., Kacmar, C.J., Douglas, C., Frink, D.D.: Development and validation of the political skill inventory. J. Manag. 31(1), 126–152 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gilley, J.W., Morris, M.L., Waite, A.M., Coates, T., Veliquette, A.: Integrated theoretical model for building effective teams. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 12(1), 7–28 (2010). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gómez-Zará, D., Andreoli, S., DeChurch, L., Contractor, N.: Discovering collaborators online: assembling interdisciplinary teams online at an Argentinian university. (44), 21–41 (2019).
  10. 10.
    Gómez-Zará, D., Paras, M., Twyman, M., Lane, J.N., DeChurch, L.A., Contractor, N.S.: Who would you like to work with? In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2019, pp. 659:1–659:15. ACM, New York (2019).
  11. 11.
    Granovetter, M.S.: The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78(6), 1360–1380 (1973). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hahn, J., Moon, J.Y., Zhang, C.: Emergence of new project teams from open source software developer networks: impact of prior collaboration ties. Inf. Syst. Res. 19(3), 369–391 (2008). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Handcock, M.S., Hunter, D.R., Butts, C.T., Goodreau, S.M., Krivitsky, P.N., Morris, M.: ERGM: Fit, Simulate and Diagnose Exponential-Family Models for Networks. The Statnet Project ( (2018). R package version 3.9.4
  14. 14.
    Harris, A.M., Gómez-Zará, D., DeChurch, L.A., Contractor, N.S.: Joining together online: the trajectory of CSCW scholarship on group formation. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 3(CSCW), 148:1–149:27 (2019). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hinds, P.J., Carley, K.M., Krackhardt, D., Wholey, D.: Choosing work group members: balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 81(2), 226–251 (2000). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jackson, C.L., Colquitt, J.A., Wesson, M.J., Zapata-Phelan, C.P.: Psychological collectivism: a measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 91(4), 884 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leifeld, P., Cranmer, S.J., Desmarais, B.A.: Temporal exponential random graph models with btergm: estimation and bootstrap confidence intervals. J. Stat. Softw. 83(6) (2018).
  18. 18.
    Lim, B.C., Klein, K.J.: Team mental models and team performance: a field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. J. Organ. Behav. 27(4), 403–418 (2006). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mumford, M.D., Baughman, W.A., Threlfall, K.V., Uhlman, C.E., Costanza, D.P.: Personality, adaptability, and performance: performance on well-defined problem solving tasks. Hum. Perform. 6(3), 241–285 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Osterman, P.: Skill, training, and work organization in american establishments. Ind. Relat. J. Econ. Soc. 34(2), 125–146 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robins, G., Pattison, P., Kalish, Y., Lusher, D.: An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Soc. Netw. 29(2), 173–191 (2007). Special Section: Advances in Exponential Random Graph (p*) ModelsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rudman, L.A., Goodwin, S.A.: Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 87(4), 494 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M.: Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Acad. Manag. J. 45(6), 1137–1148 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wagner, C.S., Leydesdorff, L.: Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Res. Policy 34(10), 1608–1618 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang, J., Hicks, D.: Scientific teams: self-assembly, fluidness, and interdependence. J. Inf. 9(1), 197–207 (2015). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yilmaz, M., O’Connor, R.V., Colomo-Palacios, R., Clarke, P.: An examination of personality traits and how they impact on software development teams. Inf. Softw. Technol. 86, 101–122 (2017). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yon, G.G.V., de la Haye, K.: Exponential random graph models for little networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.10406 (2019)
  28. 28.
    Zellmer-Bruhn, M.E., Maloney, M.M., Bhappu, A.D., Salvador, R.B.: When and how do differences matter? An exploration of perceived similarity in teams. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 107(1), 41–59 (2008). Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhu, M., Huang, Y., Contractor, N.S.: Motivations for self-assembling into project teams. Soci. Netw. 35(2), 251–264 (2013)., special Issue on Advances in Two-mode Social NetworksCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rustom Ichhaporia
    • 1
  • Diego Gómez-Zará
    • 1
    Email author
  • Leslie DeChurch
    • 1
  • Noshir Contractor
    • 1
  1. 1.Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations