Advertisement

Conditions Enabling Effective Multiple Team Membership

  • Mark Mortensen
  • Anita Williams Woolley
  • Michael O’Leary
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 236)

Abstract

There is a long tradition of research on work in teams and their increasingly important use as an approach to organizational design. While the implicit assumption has been that individuals work on one team at a time, many individuals are now being asked to juggle several projects and their associated multiple team memberships (MTM) simultaneously. This creates a set of interesting opportunities and challenges for organizations that choose to structure work in this way. In this paper, we review the limited existing research on MTM work. We then present the results of a survey documenting the prevalence of MTM work and the findings from a pilot interview study suggesting a number of challenges, benefits, and enabling conditions associated with MTM work. We discuss the implications for managers working in MTM environments as well as for scholars of teams and, in doing so we describe what we see as key items on the agenda for future research on this topic.

Keywords

Emotional Intelligence Organizational Design Virtual Team Team Structure Good Team 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    S.A. Mohrman, S.G. Cohen, and A.M.J. Mohrman, Designing Team-Based Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work (Jossey-Bass, New York, 1995).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. DeSanctis and M.S. Poole, Transitions in Teamwork in New Organizational Forms, in: Advances in Group Processes, edited by B. Markovsky et al., (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1997), pp. 157–76.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Richman, K. Noble, and A. Johnson, When the Workplace is Many Places: The Extent and Nature of Off-Site Work Today (WFD Consulting, Watertown, MA, 2002).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T.W. Malone, The Future of Work: How the New Order of Business Will Shape Your Organization, Your Management Style and Your Life (HBS Press, Boston, MA, 2004).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Hobday, The Project-based Organization: An Ideal Form for Managing Complex Products and Systems, Research Policy 29(7), 871–893 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.M. Utterback, The Process of Technological Innovation Within the Firm, Academy of Management Journal 14(1), 75–88 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. B. Watson-Manheim and F. Belanger, Support for Communication-based Work Processes in Virtual Work, e-Service Journal 1(3), 61–82 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Majchrzak, R. E. Rice, A. Malhotra, N. King, and S.L. Ba, Technology Adaptation: The Case of a Computer-supported Inter-organizational Virtual Team, MIS Quarterly 24(4), 569–600 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S.W.J. Kozlowski and D.R. Ilgen, Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams, Psychological Science in the Public Interest 7(3), 77–124 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.A. Guzzo and M.W. Dickson, Teams in Organizations: Recent Research on Performance and Effectiveness, Annual Review of Psychology 47, 307–338 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Sundstrom, K.P. DeMeuse, and D. Futrell, Work Teams: Applications and Effectiveness, American Psychologist 45(2), 120–133 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Arrow, J.E. McGrath, and J.L. Berdahl, Small Groups As Complex Systems: Formation, Coordination, Development, and Adaptation (Sage Press, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2001).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Leroy and L. Sproull. When Team Work Means Working on Multiple Teams: Examining the Impact of Multiple Team Memberships, presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA (2004).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Zika-Viktorsson, P. Sundstrom, and M. Engwall, Project Overload: An Exploratory Study of Work and Management in Multi-project Settings, International Journal of Project Management 24(5), 385–394 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Hoegl and K. Weinkauf, Managing Task Interdependencies in Multi-team Projects: A Longitudinal Study, Journal of Management Studies 42(6), 1287–1308 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    L.A. DeChurch and M.A. Marks, Leadership in Multiteam Systems, Journal of Applied Psychology 91, 311–329 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M.A. Marks, L.A. Dechurch, J.E. Mathieu, F.J. Panzer, and A. Alonso, Teamwork in Multiteam Systems, Journal of Applied Psychology 90(5), 964–971 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J.E. Mathieu, M.A. Marks, and S.J. Zaccaro, Multiteam Systems, in: International Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology, edited by N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, and C. Viswesvaran (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2001), pp. 289–313.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    T.R. Browning, Integrative Mechanisms for Multiteam Integration: Findings from Five Case Studies, Systems Engineering 1, 95–112 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    T.R. Browning, Designing System Development Projects for Organizational Integration, Systems Engineering 2(4), 217–225 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    E.W. Hans, W. Herroelen, R. Leus, and G. Wullink, A Hierarchical Approach to Multi-project Planning Under Uncertainty, Omega 35(5), 563–577 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Engwall and A. Jerbrant, The Resource Allocation Syndrome: The Prime Challenge of Multi-project Management, International Journal of Project Management 21(6), 403–409 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. De Maio, R. Verganti, and M. Corso, A Multi-project Management Framework for Product Development, European Journal of Operational Research 78, 178–191 (1994).zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J.H. Payne, Management of Multiple Simultaneous Projects: A State of the Art Review, International Journal of Project Management 13, 163–168 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    A.C. Edmondson and S.E. McManus, Methodological Fit in Management Field Research, Academy of Management Review, in press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    B.G. Glaser and A.L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Aldine, Chicago, IL, 1967).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    K. M. Eisenhardt, Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management Review 14, 532–550 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. Strauss and J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1990).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    A.C. Edmondson and I.M. Nembhard, Product Development and Learning in Project Teams: The Challenges Are the Benefits, Journal of Product Innovation Management, in press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    B.L. Kirkman, B. Rosen, C.B. Gibson, P.E. Tesluk, and S.O. McPherson, Five Challenges to Virtual Team Success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc., Academy of Management Executive 16, 67–79 (2002).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    C.B. Gibson and S.G. Cohen, eds., Virtual Teams That Work: Creating Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2003).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    C.J. Konig, M. Buhner, and G. Murling, Working Memory, Fluid Intelligence, and Attention Are Predictors of Multitasking Performance, but Polychronicity and Extraversion Are Not, Human Performance, 18, 243–266 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    H.A. Elfenbein, Team Emotional Intelligence: What It Can Mean and How It Can Impact Performance, in: The Link between Emotional Intelligence and Effective Performance, edited by V. Druskat, F. Sala, and G. Mount (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2005).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    J.R. Hackman, Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 2002).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    R. Wageman, Interdependence and Group Effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145–180 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    M.R. Haas, Acquiring and Applying Knowledge in Transnational Teams: The Roles of Cosmopolitans and Locals, Organization Science 17, 367–384 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    K.J. Klein and S.W.J. Kozlowski, eds., Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2000).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    K.J. Klein and S.W.J. Kozlowski, From Micro to Meso: Critical Steps in Conceptualizing and Conducting Multilevel Research, Organizational Research Methods 3(3), 211–36 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Mortensen
    • 1
  • Anita Williams Woolley
    • 2
  • Michael O’Leary
    • 3
  1. 1.MIT-Sloan School of ManagementUSA
  2. 2.Harvard UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Boston CollegeBoston

Personalised recommendations