Conditions Enabling Effective Multiple Team Membership

Mortensen, Mark; Woolley, Anita Williams; O’Leary, Michael

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-73025-7_16

Cited by 67 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The extent to which team members allocate their time to a given team will influence the attention given to team processes. For example, Mortensen et al (2007) interviewed a study participant who explained, “On my main project, I work 50% of my time …. On this other project, I am just a consultant, like 4 hours a week, because they need me for a particular part” (p. 9).…”

Section: Research On Dynamic Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teams Are Changing: Are Research and Practice Evolving Fast Enough?

Tannenbaum

Mathieu²,

Salas

et al. 2012

Ind. organ. psychol.

286

290

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past, there was a fairly strong alignment between what teams experienced, the topics that team researchers were studying, and the practices that organizations used to manage their teams. However, the nature of teams and the environment in which they operate has changed, and as a result, new needs have emerged. Although there have been some innovative advancements, research and practice have not always adjusted to remain aligned with emerging needs. We highlight 3 significant change themes that are affecting teams: (a) dynamic composition, (b) technology and distance, and (c) empowerment and delayering. For each theme, we share our observations, review the related science and identify future research needs, and specify challenges and recommendations for employing effective team‐based practices in applied settings. We conclude with thoughts about the future and suggest that new theories, research methods, and analyses may be needed to study the new team dynamics.

show abstract

Section: Research On Dynamic Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teams Are Changing: Are Research and Practice Evolving Fast Enough?

Tannenbaum

Mathieu²,

Salas

et al. 2012

Ind. organ. psychol.

286

290

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For many employees, allocating their time to multiple projects appears to be the norm as recent estimates suggest that 65 percent (Zika-Viktorsson, Sundström, & Engwall, 2006) to 95 percent (Martin & Bal, 2006) of knowledge workers are on multiple teams simultaneously. To date, numerous researchers (e.g., Mathieu et al, 2008;O'Leary, Mortensen, & Woolley, 2011) acknowledge the existence of multiple team memberships (MTMs), but only a handful of empirical studies (Engwall & Jerbrant, 2003;Mortensen, Woolley, & O'Leary, 2007;Zika-Viktorsson et al, 2006) have addressed the unique challenges faced by these types of teams.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryWe developed and tested a model that bridges existing team effectiveness theory with new ideas aimed at understanding the complexity of multiple team membership and virtuality. Using a sample of 60 global, virtual supply teams from a large multi-national organization, we propose that even for new team configurations, transactive memory systems and preparation activities are critical for effectiveness. We also examined the association between members' percentage of time allocated to a team, team virtuality, and interdependence on preparation activities. Our findings suggest that preparation activities related significantly to effectiveness as mediated by transactive memory systems. Furthermore, interdependence interacted with members' percentage of time allocated to the team as related to preparation activities. Specifically, members' percentage of time allocated to the team shifted from being a positive influence on preparation activities to a negative influence as team interdependence went from relatively high to relatively low levels. We discuss implications for theory, research, and practice. The simple fact is that team arrangements suitable for IPO-style investigations may be more the exception than the rule in modern-day organizations. Therefore, our challenge for future researchers is to embrace the complexity of current team arrangements. Rather than viewing the complex features of organizational teams as confounds or design problems to overcome, we submit that they are important variances to assess, model, and understand (p. 463).Similarly, the call for this special issue of the Journal of Organizational Behavior submitted the following: "changes in communications technology, organizational purposes, and the social dynamics of new generations of young professionals are together leading to the emergence of new kinds of teams in organizational life." With team phenomena starting to look significantly different, we propose to expand what we know about the antecedents, mediators, and outcomes of today's complex, dynamic teams by developing and testing a model that bridges what we "know" about teams, with newer practices emerging in organizations. Even though what teams look like has changed dramatically over the last decade, teams are still used to perform organizationally relevant tasks. Consequently, we submit that it is important not to disregard what we know about traditional teams but rather to leverage the lessons learned from prior research while simultaneously incorporating the complexity of modern-day arrangements into models of team effectiveness.

show abstract

“…Prior research has found that working across geographic boundaries may increase conflict [19] and miscommunication [20]. The problems faced when working across boundaries are not due simply to the demarcations separating the different subgroups but rather to the differences in actions, attitudes, and expectations [21][22][23]. For example, individuals from different disciplines may use different terminology, consider different kinds of data more important, or deem different kinds of analyses more valid.…”

Section: Organizational Discontinuity Theorymentioning

confidence: 93%

Inter-team coordination in large-scale agile development

Crowston

Chudoba

Watson-Manheim

et al. 2016

Proceedings of the Scientific Workshop Proceedings of XP2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We draw on Organizational Discontinuity Theory (ODT) to identify factors that increase communication and coordination problems between teams working on large software development projects. ODT posits that faced with a disruption in the expected flow of communication, called a discontinuity, individuals must make sense of the disruption to address the problem. They may be motivated to pay more attention to the situation and consider alternative actions to deal with the discontinuity, leading to the emergence of continuities, which are new behaviors, group practices and expectations. Continuities reduce or eliminate the attention and effort required to understand and manage the situation associated with problematic discontinuities. We propose a mixed-method study based on this model to examine the effects of discontinuities and the development of continuities on interteam coordination in large-scale agile software development. CCS Concepts• Software and its engineering➝Agile software development • Software and its engineering➝Programming teams

show abstract

Conditions Enabling Effective Multiple Team Membership

Cited by 67 publications

References 26 publications

Teams Are Changing: Are Research and Practice Evolving Fast Enough?

Teams Are Changing: Are Research and Practice Evolving Fast Enough?

Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness

Inter-team coordination in large-scale agile development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About