Multiple Team Membership: A Theoretical Model of its Effects on Productivity and Learning for Individuals and Teams.

Abstract

While organizations strive to manage the time and attention of workers effectively, the practice of asking workers to contribute to multiple teams simultaneously can result in the opposite. We present a model of the effects of multiple team membership (MTM) on learning and productivity via the mediating processes of individual context switching, team temporal misalignment, and intra-organizational connectivity. These effects are curvilinear, with learning and productivity peaking at moderate levels of these mediating processes.Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1474336 do -Manager (Authors, 2007) Over the last century, the primary approach to organizing has shifted from individual work in hierarchical structures, to more team-based work in hierarchical structures, to teambased work in matrix structures, and ultimately to team-based work in multi-team systems (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006;Hobday, 2000;Malone, 2004;Marks, Dechurch, Mathieu, Panzer, & Alonso, 2005;Scott & Davis, 2006). As these changes have taken place, an increasing amount of responsibility has shifted to individual employees -responsibility for managing their own learning, allocating their own time, and focusing their own attention. This is especially true when employees are members of multiple teams concurrently, with no one manager aware of each employee's full portfolio of work or team commitments. In such situations, individuals may make decisions (about their time, attention, information, etc.) that are completely rational for them, but that do not result in optimal productivity and learning at the team and organizational levels (Schelling, 1978). Conversely, without complete knowledge of individuals' multiple team commitments, teams, managers, and organizations may make reasonable team-and organizationallevel decisions that have very problematic effects for individuals. In this paper, we address this theoretical and practical tension regarding the allocation of time and attention, as well as the flow of information, when people are simultaneously members of multiple teams.Based on our own survey data and surveys by other scholars (Lu, Wynn, Chudoba., & Watson-Manheim, 2003;Martin & Bal, 2006) (Zika-Viktorsson, Sundstrom, & Engwall, 2006). Some surveys place the percent of knowledge workers who are members of more than one team as high as 94.9 percent (Martin & Bal, 2006) and in at least one company (Intel), 28% are on five or more (Lu et al., 2003). In addition, a wide variety of scholars and practitioners have mentioned the commonality of MTM. For example, Gonzalez and Mark's (2005: 143-4) comment is typical: "In fields as diverse as finance, software development, consulting, and academia, we are finding that it is commonplace that information workers are involved in multiple collaborations that occur in parallel. This demands that individuals enact specific efforts to coordinate, manage and track those collaborations." MTM seems especially common (and particularly challenging) in information technology (e.g., Bas...

Productive Interrelationships between Collaborative Groups Ease the Challenges of Dynamic and Multi-Teaming

“…The list was based on a taxonomy derived from prior literature. We included distinct group types identified in prior studies including stable project teams (Gersick 1988;Hackman 1990;McGrath 1984), dynamic project teams (Chudoba et al 2005;Mortensen and Hinds 2002;Nardi et al 2002;O'Leary et al 2011), functional or organization-based groups (Hackman 1990), communities (Lave and Wenger 1998;Kraut 2003;Preece and Maloney-Krichmar 2005), and task teams (Yarosh et al 2009). In the interview introduction, we made it clear to participants that modifying, adding to, and clarifying the list of types was a major goal of our research and they were encouraged to do so as they brainstormed their list of collaborations.…”

“…Again dynamic teams may create difficulties in goal setting, time management and organizing work within a project. It may be difficult for workers to coordinate interdependent tasks within a dynamic project because responsibilities are less clear, or because people work part time on the project (O'Leary et al 2011;Zika-Viktorsson et al 2006). Finally, the very existence of dynamic teams generates new demands for workers: new members with appropriate expertise have to be recruited by the team (McDonald and Ackerman 2000; Zhang et al 2007), and they have to be on-boarded and oriented to team goals.…”

“…Many organizations now exploit subject matter experts (SMEs) who contribute their expertise on an 'as needed' basis, rather than participating throughout the lifetime of a team (Chudoba et al 2005;Mortensen and Hinds 2002;Nardi et al 2002;O'Leary et al 2011). Such dynamic teams are often formed to accomplish a specific task, and when it is completed they are disbanded (O'Leary et al 2011). This matrixed form of organization means that workers are being asked to simultaneously participate in multiple workgroups (Chudoba et al 2005;Mark and Poltrock 2004;O'Leary, et al 2011;Zika-Viktorsson et al 2006), a phenomenon referred to as multi-teaming.…”

“…Traditional stable teams (Gersick 1988;Hackman 1990;McGrath 1984) have been transformed with the emergence of dynamic, self-configuring teams whose membership changes in response to organizational demands (Marks et al 2005;O'Leary et al 2011). Many organizations now exploit subject matter experts (SMEs) who contribute their expertise on an 'as needed' basis, rather than participating throughout the lifetime of a team (Chudoba et al 2005;Mortensen and Hinds 2002;Nardi et al 2002;O'Leary et al 2011). Such dynamic teams are often formed to accomplish a specific task, and when it is completed they are disbanded (O'Leary et al 2011).…”

“…Such dynamic teams are often formed to accomplish a specific task, and when it is completed they are disbanded (O'Leary et al 2011). This matrixed form of organization means that workers are being asked to simultaneously participate in multiple workgroups (Chudoba et al 2005;Mark and Poltrock 2004;O'Leary, et al 2011;Zika-Viktorsson et al 2006), a phenomenon referred to as multi-teaming.…”