To examine social interdependence theory dynamically, we develop a theory of structural adaptation based on "asymmetric adaptability." We suggest that it is more difficult for teams to shift from competitive to cooperative reward structures than from cooperative to competitive structures. We show that teams that switch from competitive to cooperative reward structures demonstrate "cutthroat cooperation." In their performance, marked by lower team decision accuracy and higher speed, they resemble competitive teams more than cooperative teams. Information sharing, also lower for cutthroat cooperation teams than for other cooperative teams, partially mediates the relationship between reward structure and accuracy.

Although there is a growing literature on organizational identification, relatively little research has investigated other possible targets of identification. In a sample of veterinarians working in a wide range of organizations, the authors compared their identification with the veterinary profession, their organization, and their workgroup. The authors found different patterns of identification across these targets depending on whether the individual (a) worked in a veterinary medicine or nonveterinary medicine organization and (b) was an owner/partner or an associate. Owners of veterinary medicine organizations identified more with the organization than with either the profession or their workgroup. Associates in veterinary medicine organizations identified more with the organization and the workgroup than with the profession. Veterinarians in nonveterinary medicine organizations identified more with the profession and their workgroup than with the organization. Identification with each of the targets provided independent predictive validity of job satisfaction.

In this article, the authors argue that there is no one best way to make placement decisions on self-managed teams. Drawing from theories of supplementary and complementary fit, they develop a conceptual model that suggests that (a) maximization principles should be applied to extroversion variance (i.e., complementary fit), (b) minimization principles should be applied to conscientiousness variance (i.e., supplementary fit), and (c) extroversion variance and conscientiousness variance interact to influence team performance. They also argue that previous research has underestimated the effect of extroversion and conscientiousness variance on performance because of suboptimal design. The authors, therefore, present an alternative method for making team placement decisions (i.e., seeding) that can be used to maximize or minimize variance in teams.

Personal reputation has been argued to demonstrate important influences on work outcomes. However, substantive research on personal reputation is relatively scarce. This two-study investigation empirically supports and extends existing theory regarding the temporal development of personal reputation (i.e., antecedents and consequences), and thus contributes to a more informed understanding of both the construct and criterion-related validity of this important construct. Study 1 is conducted longitudinally, in order to assess the development of personal reputation over time, which is undertaken to demonstrate the effects of human capital and social effectiveness as antecedents of reputation. Study 2 complements and extends the first study by conducting a field investigation examining the effects of time, human capital, and social effectiveness as antecedents of personal reputation, while also exploring the reputation consequences of autonomy, power, and career success. Our findings suggest that human capital, time, and social effectiveness play a part in the development of a reputation. Furthermore, career success, power, and autonomy were shown to be outcomes of the reputation construct. Contributions and strengths of this investigation, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.Personal reputation is a fact of both social and organizational life (e.g., Bromley, 1993). Individuals can develop reputations for many things in everyday life, but at work, reputations most likely focus on issues related to individuals' capacity to perform their jobs effectively, and to be cooperative and helpful towards others. Although there are examples of individuals intentionally creating negative reputations for themselves, this is