Crossing team boundaries: A theoretical model of team boundary permeability and a discussion of why it matters

Dibble, Rebekah; Gibson, Cristina B.

doi:10.1177/0018726717735372

Cited by 29 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A group's boundaries are permeable when individuals have the possibility to change their group affiliation (Alderfer & Smith, 1982;Ellemers, 1993). Mortensen and Haas (2018) and Dibble and Gibson (2017) follow a similar argument, stating that boundary permeability arises from membership change. Dahlander and Frederiksen (2012) posit, permeability is given when people are free to change membership or hold multiple memberships without being constrained to their formal affiliations.…”

Section: The Permeability Of Team Boundaries: a Team-level Perspectivementioning

confidence: 92%

“…Their work is among the few that show how boundaries emerge and that they can be permeable and dynamic. Additional research shows that teams are less bounded than has previously been assumed, as membership is a matter of degree and as many teams are characterized by a core and a periphery (Biancani et al, 2014;Dahlander & Frederiksen, 2012;Dibble & Gibson, 2017;Edmondson & Harvey, 2018). Mortensen and Haas's (2018) theory on team boundaries posits that formally assigned boundaries are perceived differently by individuals and change over time and thus result in permeable team boundaries.…”

Section: Team Boundaries In Organizational Theorymentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In or Out? Exploring the Inconsistency and Permeability of Team Boundaries

Wimmer

Backmann

Hoegl

2019

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the fundamental relevance of team boundaries for team research, scholars have rarely explored their origins and characteristics. Instead, team research commonly assumes the existence of formally defined, stable team boundaries. We challenge this assumption by asserting that beyond formal assignment, team members’ individual perceptions of a team’s boundaries are driven by individual-level categorization processes and team-level task dynamism. Building on multiple team members’ mental representations of team boundaries, we propose that team boundaries are likely mutually inconsistent and vary in their degree of permeability. This permeability and inconsistency serve to clarify how membership change and overlap can induce cognitive and emotional spillovers across teams. The proposed conceptual model links the origins of boundary emergence with their characteristics by explaining how membership structure and dynamics drive the characteristics of team boundaries. This account offers a new perspective on how individual perceptions of work affiliations can shape a team’s boundaries.

show abstract

Section: The Permeability Of Team Boundaries: a Team-level Perspectivementioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Team Boundaries In Organizational Theorymentioning

confidence: 97%

In or Out? Exploring the Inconsistency and Permeability of Team Boundaries

Wimmer

Backmann

Hoegl

2019

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The movement of members on and off a team over time is the most widely covered topic in the literature on change factors, including work on "open groups" (Ziller, 1965), "membership dynamics" (Arrow & McGrath, 1993), "member fluidity" (Bushe & Chu, 2011), and "boundary permeability" (Dibble & Gibson, 2018). Shifting membership is of sustained interest today because it is increasingly present in real-world teams (Hackman & Katz, 2010), such as health-care teams delivering emergency and complex care (Bedwell et al, 2012) and innovation teams that must recombine diverse knowledge (Choi & Thompson, 2005).…”

Section: Membership Shiftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Into the fray: Adaptive approaches to studying novel teamwork forms

Kerrissey

Satterstrom

Edmondson³

2020

Organizational Psychology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Novel forms of teamwork—created by rapid change and growing diversity among collaborators—are increasingly common, and they present substantial methodological challenges for research. We highlight two aspects of new team forms that challenge conventional methods. Factors pertaining to change (e.g., in membership) create entitativity challenges such as whom to count as team members, while factors pertaining to difference (e.g., in expertise) create concordance challenges such as how to interpret disagreement in groups. We review research methods that are well-suited to each of these specific challenges. We identify the particular challenges of studying teams that exhibit high difference and change simultaneously and call for adaptive methods that enable insight into how they work. Clarity about the dimensions of deviation from ideal team forms, along with shared terminology, will help researchers make and discuss tough methodological choices and assist reviewers in evaluating them.

show abstract

“…If certain team members are on the front foot, this leads to a decrease in the level of complementarity. This is ensured by the dynamism of the team, in which members can easily move within and outside their group (Dibble & Gibson, 2018;.…”

Section: Contemporary Empirical Studies Of Human Resources` Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Methodical Approach to the Assessment of Human Resources` Interactions

Переверзєва¹

2019

JEMI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To our knowledge, there is a need to develop a methodological approach to the assessment of united communiti es` human resources` level of interacti ons, as a large group, and of separate structural unit's-a small group. This allows us to determine the dependence of the level of interacti ons on the number of people who interact within a parti cular structure and the nature of the acti vity they carry out-intellectual or manual labor. The purpose of our research is to develop a methodological approach to the assessment of the level of human resources` interacti ons, which allows us to identi fy key areas and policy measures. Expert assessments and analyti cal dependencies are used as research tools in the arti cle. These tools allow us to quanti tati vely determine the level of human resources` interacti ons for an individual enti ty. Empirical implementati on of the proposed approach, using the example of two enti ti es varying in size and nature of labor, allowed us to make a comparati ve analysis and to disti nguish the characteristi c features that are the basis for making managerial decisions. A manager acts as an expert who assesses the presence or absence of a parti cular event in the subordinate unit. The indicator, which characterizes the presence or absence of certain acti viti es and the level of parti cipati on in them, is defi ned on the basis of managerial assessment. The next stage is to determine the interacti on rate by means of certain mathemati cal dependencies and results` analysis. As a result of the research, we got the assessment of the level of human resources` interacti ons between two enti ti es-a united community and a structural unit. The assessment revealed a dependence on the level of interacti ons on the enti ty`s size (small and large groups) and the nature of labor. The results showed that a structural unit, focused on intellectual labor and presented by a small group, has a greater level of interacti ons than a united community, which has a bigger size and a predominance of manual labor.

show abstract

Crossing team boundaries: A theoretical model of team boundary permeability and a discussion of why it matters

Cited by 29 publications

References 89 publications

In or Out? Exploring the Inconsistency and Permeability of Team Boundaries

In or Out? Exploring the Inconsistency and Permeability of Team Boundaries

Into the fray: Adaptive approaches to studying novel teamwork forms

A Methodical Approach to the Assessment of Human Resources` Interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About