Team Performance is determined by two key factors: (1) the competitive team-based capital,and (2) the effective and efficient utilization of that capital. The resource-based view (RBV) is built upon the first factor and the dynamic capability one (DCV) is built upon the second factor. The resource-based view argues that companies gain competitive advantage when they can mobilize unique and non-substitutable resources compared with their competitors’. In contrast, the dynamic capability view stipulates that companies entertain higher performance when they develop distinctive routines, that is, dynamic capability that enable them to apply the capital to gain competitive advantage in ever-changing environments. Building upon the research of resource-based and dynamic capability views, we propose that teams can gain their competitive advantage when they have both unique resources and ability to mobilize them successfully. As a way of integrating the two perspectives, we theorizes the mediating model of team dynamic capability. We argue that team dynamic capability mediate the given combination of team resource or capital to the team performance. To test the integrative model, we developed the typology of team capital into team cultural capital, structural capital, social capital, and human capital. We also elaborate the concept of team dynamic capability on the team level. Specifically, we define team dynamic capabilities as the ability for a team not only to exploit the configuration of various capital but also explore or innovate it to the team’s performance. The integrative model was tested with 121 teams and 693 team members sampled from the 5large companies in Korea in a given time period. To correct the common method variance, we collected data from team leaders and members separately. The unit of analysis is team. We used Lisrel analyses to examine the causal model with the measurement model corrected. Our findings can be summarized as follow. First, team capital as unique and distinctive team resources increases team dynamic capability significantly. Looking at the relative effect size of each component of team capital, effects of social capital and human capital on the dynamic capability are larger than those of structural and cultural capital. This result would imply that social and human capital at the team level play a key instrumental role in bridging the ‘outside’ resources into the inside capital of the team. The social and human capital also levels up the team learning ability by exploring new ideas in environments. Second, team dynamic capability promoting both exploitation and exploration is the key parameter that mediates the relationship between team capital and team performance. Especially, team dynamic capability fully mediates the effects of structural capital and social capital on team performance. By leveraging, modifying, and recreating the configuration of team capital, teams excel higher performance. These findings of the research support our ‘synthetic model’ of the resource-based and dynamic capability perspectives evidencing that teams simply equipped with sufficient capital are not good enough to attain high performance. Teams should have dynamic capability as well as unique resources. Retaining valuable team capital and building capital-utilizing-ability are two distinct, but interrelated mechanisms to excel team performance. The rationale is that team capital as team resources affects team performance ‘prior to’ the resource exploration and exploitation, that is, team dynamic capability. The key to excellent team performance is that the team has routines known as dynamic capability. We conclude that resource keeping and utilizing are complementary to each other and the synthesis of the resource based and dynamic capability view provides a comprehensive perspective for analyzing how firms or teams are creating higher performance.