Teams Underinvest in Team-Specific Skill — But Incentives and Personality Selection Can Fix It

A lab experiment confirms the theory: people systematically under-build team capital, but respond strongly to incentive design and teammate selection based on measurable traits.

Imagine you and a friend are building a deck together. You could each spend money on personal tools you'd keep forever, or you could invest in shared jigs and fixtures that only work when you're both on site. The shared jigs make every subsequent hour of joint work dramatically more productive — but if your partner flakes, that investment is stranded. This paper formalizes exactly that tradeoff and then tests it with real humans. The committed claim: this is the first systematic theoretical-and-experimental analysis of dynamic investment in team-specific capital — the kind of skill or coordination infrastructure that accumulates inside a team, raises returns to joint production, but is worthless if the team falls apart. Gill, Prowse, and Reddinger build a novel multi-period game where players choose how much to invest in a shared asset whose payoff depends on future coordination success, then run a pre-registered lab experiment to test the model's comparative statics. The headline result is underinvestment. Subjects invest less in team skill than the efficient benchmark predicts, and the gap is persistent. But the paper's real contribution is the mechanism decomposition: investment responds strongly and systematically to incentive parameters — specifically the return to coordinated production, the cost of investment, and the persistence of accumulated team capital. These responses track the directions the theory predicts, which is a meaningful validation given the model's moving parts. The comparative statics are clean: when team returns rise, investment rises; when investment costs fall, investment rises; when capital depreciates faster, investment falls. These are not surprising individually, but getting all three to move in the predicted direction simultaneously in a dynamic game with strategic uncertainty is nontrivial. The architecture is a finite-horizon dynamic coordination game — think repeated stag hunt with endogenous state. Players simultaneously choose investment levels each period; accumulated team capital raises the payoff to mutual coordination but investment is sunk if coordination fails. The equilibrium analysis uses Markov perfect equilibrium as the solution concept. The lab implementation runs subjects through multi-round sessions with real monetary payoffs. Pre-registered individual-difference measures — theory of mind (Reading the Mind in the Eyes test) and coordination propensity — are collected before the game and used as predictors. On integrity, the experiment is pre-registered, which is increasingly standard in experimental economics but still puts this paper ahead of most theory-plus-lab work. The pre-registration of trait-based predictions is the strongest signal: the authors committed in advance to testing whether theory of mind and coordination propensity predict investment, then found that they do. The efficient benchmark is derived from their own model, not an external standard, which creates some circularity — but this is inherent to the 'theory-then-test' design in game theory labs. The 90-page length (with appendices) suggests thorough robustness checks. The practical punchline is organizational: if you're designing teams, two levers matter. First, incentive structure — making team-specific investment cheaper or more persistent reduces underinvestment. Second, team composition — selecting members with higher theory of mind and coordination propensity generates higher team-level efficiency. This isn't 'hire nice people'; it's 'measurable pre-task traits predict dynamic investment behavior in a statistically significant way.' The bridge from lab to field is always fragile, but the mechanisms are clean enough to warrant managerial attention. The next frontier the authors didn't cross: field experiments in real organizations. Running this inside actual project teams — where stakes are higher, relationships pre-exist, and exit is costly — would test whether the lab effects survive ecological validity. The honest read is that field experiments in organizational teams are logistically brutal and multi-year, so this is a compute/logistics constraint, not a hidden negative result.