Cross-functional teams
Multidisciplinary teams, multifunctional teams, cross-functional teams and diverse teams are terms that are quite commonly found in the management literature. Regarding the success of cross-functional teams, many conclusions are shared among researchers, and many are disputed. In this section, I will distill the shared views, and discuss what could be of use in the current research.
Cross-functional teams and team performance
In a meta-analysis regarding the effects of team diversity on team outcomes, a positive relation between functional diversity and both the quality and quantity of team performance was found (Horwitz &
Horwitz, 2007). This relation was not found for bio-demographic diversity (such as age, sex and race).
Regarding functional diversity, the researchers could not confirm the hypotheses describing moderating effects of task complexity (due to a homogeneous sample), task interdependence and team size (no significant effect detected).
An influential study supporting the positive relation of diverse teams and team performance is by Van Knippenberg et al. (2004). They indicated ambiguity in the success of multidisciplinary teams. This idea originated from the categorization-elaboration model (CEM) (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). CEM (figure 3) describes a positive relation between diversity and performance through
elaboration of information. However, relational conflict, low cohesion and team identification diminish this relationship. Whereas elaboration of information between group members can lead to better communal understanding, hence improving team performance, it can also lead to intergroup bias through social categorization, which leads to less team identification. This leads to worse team performance. Van Knippenberg et al. (2004) implied that managers should foster elaboration, and prevent negative inter-group bias.
4
Figure 3: The CEM model (van Knippenberg et al., 2004)
Mello and Delise (2015) found that when there is difference in cognitive styles within a team, this relates to poor group cohesion, which relates negatively to team performance. Cognitive styles are different ways in which an individual gathers, processes, and organizes information; for instance rational (relying on logic and data) and intuitive (comfortable with gut reaction). Conflict management moderates the relation between cognitive diversity and group cohesion, suggesting an important role for the team leader. Without such management in place, frustration can take place between team members of different cognitive types (Mello & Delise, 2015).
A recent meta-analysis called for attention to be directed towards effects of team diversity over time (Srikanth, Harvey, & Peterson, 2016). They argued the “double edged sword” of access to diverse
information on one hand, and social categorization on the other, to hold truth, but that temporal aspects of the situation are overlooked. They suggested, combining previous studies, that ineffective group processes and conflict occur in the medium term, whereas they can be overcome in the longer term.
Furthermore, the upside of having access to diverse information would according to Srikanth et al.
(2016), only in the longer term lead to improved team performance.
5 Pro-diversity beliefs
Van Dick et al. (2008) contributed to the CEM model (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004) that the difference in the levels of performance in diverse teams comes from the level of pro-diversity beliefs in a team. In general terms: the more a team believes in the success of diverse teams, the more
information elaboration takes place and the more willingness there is to stay in a team. This results in high team performance. Homan et al. (2010) supported this view by finding that the more group
members value diversity, the more likely they are to perceive diversity in terms of individual differences, and the less likely they are to create subgroups to deal with this diversity.
A contextual factor that contributes to team performance in diverse teams is called “people-oriented workgroup environments”, which are environments where there is an emphasis on common goals and shared commitment, rather than stimulating values such as competition, autonomy and achievement (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004). They can improve the performance outcomes of groups because emphasizing collectivity and group work can actually facilitate the alignment of actions in the group. It could be the case that group members are more concerned with their group success rather than their own social status. However, this effect might also come to exist because of the bonus structure that rewards group performance in the context of Jehn & Bezrukova (2004).
People oriented workgroup environments and pro-diversity beliefs are two factors that, according to previous research, enhance group performance (Van Dick, Van Knippenberg, Hägele, Guillaume, &
Brodbeck, 2008) (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004). Both topics are relevant for team leaders as they appear easily manipulatable, although unfortunately they were not researched from that angle.
Interpersonal congruence is a measure that describes the degree to which “group members see others in the group as others see themselves” (Polzer, Milton, & Swann Jr., 2002). In a longitudinal study of 83 demographically diverse work groups, it was found that interpersonal congruence moderates the
relationship between group diversity and group effectiveness, such that when there is high interpersonal congruence, diverse group are more effective than non-diverse groups. On the other hand, when there is low interpersonal congruence, diverse teams are less effective than non-diverse groups.
6 Conflict and elaboration
Another subject that is mentioned in scientific literature is conflict. Conflict is distinguished in task conflict, relationship conflict and process conflict. Task conflict is in a situation when group members disagree about task issues, including goals, procedures and the appropriate choice for action (Pelled et al., 1999). Relationship or emotional conflict is a condition when people have personal issues
characterized by negative emotions such as frustration and anger (Pelled et al., 1999). Process conflict is defined as an awareness of controversies about aspects of how to proceed to fulfill tasks (Jehn &
Mannix, 2001). In an integrative model of relationships between diversity, conflict and performance in teams, Pelled et al. (1999) found that functional background diversity drives task conflict, and not so much drive emotional conflict, which would be the case with demographic diversity. However, they also found a positive relationship between task conflict and cognitive task performance. They explain this effect by saying that “Such conflict […] fosters a deeper understanding of task issues and an exchange of information that facilitates problem solving, decision making, and the generation of ideas.” (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999, p. 22) A direct connection between diversity and performance could however not be made, possibly due to a small sample size.
The view that task conflict potentially leads to increased group performance through elaboration was shared by Jehn et al. (2008). Information elaboration is defined as “the exchange of information and perspectives, individual-level processing of the information and perspectives, feeding back the results of this individual-level processing into the group, and discussion and integration of their implications.”
(Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997). Jehn et al. (2008) showed that different educational backgrounds is associated with increased task-conflict. On the other hand, value congruence decreases both
relationship and task conflict.
As shown, elaboration of information to share information within a group of different minded people drives team performance. The concept of reflexivity, which is described as “the extent to which teams reflect upon and modify their functioning” (Schippers, Hartog, Koopman, & Wienk, 2003, p. 779), can also enhance team performance. In their research, Schippers et al. (2003) found reflexivity to be a mediator between team diversity and team satisfaction, commitment and performance. However, the
7
types of diversity that were considered in this research are gender, age, educational level and tenure.
Therefore, they provided no information on functional diversity.
Cross-functional teams and innovation or NPD
Next, a closer look was taken at innovation and NPD in relation to multidisciplinary teams. The link between multidisciplinarity and innovation was made by Fay et al. (2006). They found in their study that innovation quality (rather than quantity) is improved in multidisciplinary teams, if the quality of team processes is high. In their study, the quality of team processes was measured by using a reflexivity measure (West, 1996) and part of the Team Climate Inventory (Anderson & West, 1998).
In a study of 93 R&D and NPD teams among 4 different firms, Keller (2001) found that cross-functional teams in NPD can deliver better quality, schedule and budget performance, although none of these effects are direct. Instead, this happens through better external communication. With multiple
disciplines in a team, you are better connected to external networks of areas of expertise. Furthermore, negative effects were found on group cohesion through increased job stress, which is similar to the double edged-sword that was depicted in the CEM model (van Knippenberg et al., 2004), where social categorization is mentioned as a negative affecter of the relation between diversity and information elaboration.
A meta-analysis of the importance of context in work team diversity showed small yet significant direct effects of contextual factors such as industry, occupation and team on performance outcomes (Joshi &
Roh, 2009). One of their more relevant conclusions was that task-oriented diversity was positively related to performance. This effect is slightly larger in the high-tech industry. The longer the teams operate, the larger this effect becomes.
Conclusion
Although the effect of multi-disciplinarity is debated upon in scientific literature, some general conclusions can be drawn. In general, it can be stated that diversity fosters performance, if the right circumstances are in place. Some of these circumstances were identified in this chapter. The first one is pro-diversity beliefs. Across multiple studies, it was found that when team members value diversity, they
8
are more likely to embrace diversity obtaining beneficial team performance from it. Closely related, creating interpersonal congruence or emphasis on group identity has also shown to lead to positive performance outcomes.
One way of explaining how this happens is through conflict and information elaboration. In diverse groups, task conflict more frequently occurs than in non-diverse groups. Task conflict fosters elaboration among group members: people from different disciplines explain more thoroughly what they are doing, creating communal understanding. When this is the case, different disciplines lead to having more knowledge in your team which, given that the information is processed and shared by the group, leads to higher team performance.
Finally, we saw that the effects of cross-functional teams is especially high in innovative, creative or high-tech industries. So some understanding of the success of multidisciplinary teams has been achieved.
However, so far we know little about team leaders’ or managers’ abilities to influence these processes.
Therefore, the next chapter looks into the state of art of cross-functional teams in relationship to leadership.
9
Team Leadership
The subject of team leadership was also vastly discussed in the scientific literature. Research areas include management or leadership styles such as temporal leadership, shared leadership, empowering leadership, and the newly introduced pro-diversity leadership. In this chapter I have looked into the present knowledge of the subject of leadership, with a special interest in how leadership drives
performance in diverse teams. Finally, I have concluded on what we already know about the influence of leadership on diverse teams: how can you manage a diverse team so that you profit from the advantages it offers, whilst evading the negative consequences of diversity?
Leadership styles in relation to diverse teams
In general, team leaders can provide enabling support to cross-functional teams. Functional diversity of cross-functional teams increases the amount and variety of available information (McDonough III, 2000).
It is the team leader’s task to make sure the information is shared to benefit from the variety of information.
Team leadership potentially has a large influence on team processes and team results. Zaccaro et al.
(2002) made this general claim, and extended it by showing the influences of functional leadership.
Functional leadership is described as that it is “the leader’s job to do or get done, whatever functions are not being handled adequately in terms of group needs.” (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2002). They showed through literature research that functional leadership improves team effectiveness through cognitive, affective, motivational and coordination processes.
Directive leadership is defined as providing a framework for decision making and action to team members (Somech, 2006). In a study on leadership impact on functionally heterogeneous teams it was found that directive leadership improves in-role performance of a heterogeneous team through
improved team reflection (Somech, 2006). Unfortunately, the study did not go beyond the description of directive leadership to describe which behavior of a team leader is desired. The researcher concluded that team reflection improves in-role performance. When heterogeneity is present, leaders play an
10
important role by making sure reflection takes place, improving team performance even more than in homogenous teams (Somech, 2006).
In top-management teams, contextual factors concerning team diversity were studied (Hmieleski &
Ensley, 2007). They found that in a dynamic industry environment, directive leadership moderates the positive relation between functional team heterogeneity and new venture performance, such that the relationship is stronger when leadership is more directive. Empowering leadership shows a contrary effect. Empowering leadership is leadership where the leader shares power with the employee,
providing decision-making autonomy, expressing confidence in the employee’s capabilities and removing hindrances to performance (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). In a stable industry environment, it was found that the effects were exactly opposite: empowering leadership was beneficial towards performance, whereas directive leadership was not. In the study by Hmieleski and Ensley (2007), no general claims could be made on a direct relationship between top-management team heterogeneity and new venture
performance: this was completely depending on the contextual factors of leadership style and dynamism of the industry. For NPD, it could generally be stated that it takes place in a dynamic environment, meaning a directive leadership style might be beneficial to profit from team functional diversity, whereas empowering leadership might less be so.
Shared leadership is a collective social influence process shared by team members and aimed toward the achievement of team goals (Hoch, Pearce, & Welzel, 2010). Shared leadership is defined as “an emergent team property that results from the distribution of leadership influence across multiple team members. It represents a condition of mutual influence embedded in the interactions among team members that can significantly improve team and organizational performance” (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007, p. 1218).
Hoch et al. (2010) found shared leadership to have a positive relation with team performance. This effect is moderated by age diversity and coordination. When age diversity and coordination are low, shared leadership has a very large positive influence on the team performance, whereas when age diversity and coordination are high, shared leadership seems to have little impact. Even though shared leadership is tested in contexts of different types of variety than that of the focal research, the conclusion that for
11
diverse teams there will be a relatively small influence of shared leadership is likely to apply. When appointing a leader “from within” when working in a functionally diverse team, it is likely the advantages of the different areas of expertise will not fulfill its potential, as a non-member leader should be able to distance him/herself. In that way, the leader is likely to be more open to the ideas of the members from different backgrounds.
The concept of shared temporal cognition (STC) describes to what extent team members have a common perspective about temporal approaches and behaviors (Gevers, van Eerde, & Rutte, 2004). Research showed that STC has a positive relationship with team satisfaction, whereas temporal conflict has a negative relationship with team satisfaction (Standifer, Raes, Peus, Passos, & Santos, 2015). Temporal leadership is aimed at benefitting from this.
Temporal leadership is leadership that stresses on temporal aspects of teamwork (like setting deadlines, having regular meetings, and etcetera), and that is aimed at creating common temporal norms in a team.
It is shown to have a direct, positive influence on team performance (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011).
Moreover, the researchers showed a moderating effect of temporal leadership between pacing style diversity and team performance.
Call for pro-diversity leadership
Knippenberg et al. (2013) proposed that the positive relationship between diversity and performance is enhanced by diversity mindsets in the team. More specifically, the more team members know about diversity and information elaboration, the more conductive the diversity mindset will be. The influence of diversity mindsets on the relationship between diversity and performance increases, according to the authors, the more shared the diversity mindsets are, and the more aware team members are of this sharedness. Finally, they proposed an important role for the team leader in this process, stating that the level of diversity mindset, the sharedness thereof and the awareness of the sharedness, is positively influenced by team leadership “Advocating an understanding of diversity as an informational resource, stimulating experience with elaboration of these informational resources, and engendering team reflexivity” (Van Knippenberg, Van Ginkel, & Homan, 2013, p. 189).
12
Gong et al. (2013) found that team information exchange moderates the relation between team performance approach and learning goals and individual and team creativity. Furthermore, this
moderating effect was found to be larger for situations where there is high trust in the team leader. As we saw before, team information exchange can be stimulated by a team leader (e.g. McDonough III, 2000; Somech, 2006) to benefit from the information at hand. In functionally diverse teams, there is more variety in the available information, making it even more beneficial to share information. Next, it is even more important for a team leader to raise awareness among team members of the value of the available variety of the information, and of the necessity to share it.
Studies reported a positive relation between diversity in teams and intrateam conflicts (eg. Jehn et al.
(2008), Pelled, Eisenhardt and Xin (1999)). However, conflict was shown to deliver positive outcomes in previous chapter, and even dissatisfaction is not always negative as shown by Zhou and George (2001), as long as leadership responds accordingly. They found a significant increase in creativity in dissatisfied workers, when there is high coworker support, and when employees have a high continuance
commitment. Here, the importance of both leadership (continuance commitment) and communication with team members (coworker support) is stressed.
Finally, team goal commitment is shown to positively influence team performance, in innovative tasks (Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2006). Furthermore, team goal commitment is raised by participative decision making. This could be interpreted as another call for information sharing among the team.
Guillaume et al. (2013) stated that there has been little cross-fertilization between the literature on diversity and on the management of diversity. This is a bridge I tried to gap in my research, by
establishing the effects of functional diversity on work outcomes on one hand, and the role of the team leader’s behavior on the other hand.
Furthermore, the issue is raised that there seems to be “too little development of theoretical
frameworks that are more widely applied in the study of diversity” (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007, p. 533). Furthermore, they stated that theoretical models are too vaguely described to be able to reach
13
predictable conclusions. Hence, I concluded that building a well-described and grounded measure is a good development.
Above, some arguments were given that call for a type of leadership that exploits the advantages and prevents the disadvantages of working in functionally diverse teams. Today, this is becoming increasingly important as diverse teams play an increasingly important role in NPD and innovation processes.
Therefore, Rispens et al. (2012) proposed pro-diversity leadership, which is expected to utilize the functional diversity in teams.
The encouraging of pro-diversity beliefs is the main goal of pro-diversity leadership. Leaders can do that for example, by “explaining how task performance can benefit from the diverse perspectives and
The encouraging of pro-diversity beliefs is the main goal of pro-diversity leadership. Leaders can do that for example, by “explaining how task performance can benefit from the diverse perspectives and