More than just a feeling: The influence of
organizational and team identification on inter-team
effectiveness mediated by boundary spanning
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 2014
Paula Martí Olmos Student number: 2530120 Winschoterdiep, 46 9723AC, Groningen Tel: +31 639076101 E-mail: p.marti.olmos@student.rug.nl Supervisor: Gerben van der Vegt
2 ABSTRACT
This research examines the relationship between inter-team task interdependence and boundary spanning activity moderated by the feeling of organizational and team identification. It also gives some insights on how the interactions of these variables influence inter-team effectiveness. The leading research question is: To what extent does inter-team
task interdependence contribute to team boundary spanning and how do organizational identification and team identification affect it? This research contributes to the extensive
body of work concerning the study of team boundary spanning. In practice, it may help companies to manage interdependencies between teams in order to achieve desirable outcomes. We test if in high task interdependence contexts, a greater level of organizational identification or team identification leads to a high level of team boundary spanning. Later, it is assessed to what extent boundary spanning contributes to inter-team effectiveness.
3 INTRODUCTION
Challenges facing today’s organizations are the increased complexity of tasks, dynamic and changing environmental conditions, the global competition, and the efforts needed to actively manage knowledge work, and external relationships (Marrone, 2010). To overcome these challenges, work is organized through self-directed teams assigned to specific tasks which need input of other teams to complete these tasks. These teams are characterized by being cross-functional, representing different functional units, or multidisciplinary, involving several disciplines, or both (Vissers & Dankbaar, 2002). Teams are “two or more individuals who work together toward the accomplishment of a common goal in organizations” (Katz-Navon & Erez, 2005: 437). Teams are becoming the way to structure work in modern organizations because they are a source of innovation. Most teams are parts of larger organizations where they must relate to the goals of the organization and to the goals of other groups within the organization. The emergence of team-based organizations requires to focus on inter-team activities instead of intra-team activities in order to understand organizational functioning (Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2010). Throughout this article, the terms team, group, and unit are used interchangeably.
4 In the past research about groups, the focus has been mostly on internal dynamics and team performance (Choi, 2002). This is surprising since teams are embedded in larger organizational contexts, and the external interactions and relationships that a group establishes with other groups may have a critical impact on organizational performance and effectiveness (Gladstein, 1984).
The objectives of this study are threefold: first, to examine inter-team task interdependence as an independent variable which influences the degree of boundary spanning activity displayed by teams; second, to test for different effects of organizational identification and team identification on the relationship between inter-team task interdependence and the level of team boundary spanning; and third to analyse the influence of boundary spanning on inter-team effectiveness.
Theoretical Background
Definitions and level of analysis
Ancona and Caldwell (1988, 1990, 1992a, 1992b) were pioneers in taking into account the role of external team interactions for effective team and organizational functioning. During the last 20 years, external interactions have become an object of interest within the group literature because they have great impact on some team outcomes such as innovativeness, knowledge transfer, team performance, and team effectiveness (e.g. Choi, 2002; Joshi, Pandey, & Han, 2009; Marrone, 2010; Marrone, Tesluk & Carson, 2007; Oh, Chung, & Labianca, 2004; Tushman, 1977). The term external interactions, refers to the interactions that a team establishes with its embedding environment. This environment resides outside of the team’s own boundary and can include parties residing within or outside team’s organization (Marrone, 2010). Intergroup relations are important since they enable teams to meet their overall goals. These external interactions have been labelled as “team boundary spanning” or “team boundary management”.
The number of connections that a group displays is the result of the sum of team member’s boundary spanning behaviours. Consequently, boundary spanning is a team level construct and is described with a process composition model (Chan, 1998).
5 feedback (Ancona et al., 1992a, 1992b). These activities correspond to a specific set of boundary spanning behaviours labelled task coordinator behaviours. Task coordinator behaviours are aimed at managing horizontal dependence and coordinating a team’s efforts with other teams (Ancona et al., 1992a). There are two types of external relationships that a group has to effectively manage: within an organization, and outside organizational boundaries (Marrone, 2010). This study only deals with lateral networks within an organization, in particular, cross-team relationships. The focus is on boundary activities between teams within the same organization, thereby excluding interactions within teams or with external parties of the organization such as customers, providers, competitors.
Social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) explains how individuals identify themselves with particular social groups. Based on this theory, collective team identification is defined as “the emotional significance that members of a group attach to their membership in that group” (Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005: 533). Inside of an organization, employees can be part of different groups in the same time. They tend to work for a specific team or work group (e.g. sales department, production department) and for the organization. All different groups that constitute an organization are part of the organization as a whole. Therefore, employees can have as many social identities as the groups to which they feel they belong, and they can develop different levels of identification for each one.
Organizational identification is another specific form of social identification; it is defined as
“the perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization, where the individual defines him or herself in terms of the organization in which he or she is a member” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992: 104). Employees use to develop a sense of identification with the organization they are working for when they recognize their values in the organization’s features (Huemer, Becerra, & Lunnan, 2004). Collective organizational identification is about sharing values, goals, attitudes, and behaviours with other employees (Chan & Mak, 2014).
Organizational identification and team identification have a potential capacity to generate a range of positive employee and organizational outcomes (He & Brown, 2013), such as employee satisfaction, low turnover intention, and team performance. Additionally, they can represent a relatively inimitable resource, leading to a source of sustainable advantage (Fiol, 2001).
6 actions or outcomes of another referent system” (McCann & Ferry, 1979: 113). Task dependence between employees exists when an employee depends for information, knowledge, support or any other resource on another employee to complete his or her task successfully (de Jong, Van der Vegt, & Molleman, 2007). Task interdependence involves the set of operations, which are dependent on each other. In high inter-team task interdependence contexts, the completion of one task has consequences for the completion of other tasks. The specification “inter-team” is used to denote that dependencies are inter-unit or inter-team in nature. For example, a specific unit of an organization interacts with a specific unit of another organization, or a specific unit of an organization interacts with another specific unit within the same organization. For the purpose of this paper, inter-team refers to interactions across teams within the same organization. In addition, intergroup relations can occur at the level of two members interacting (dyadic level) and/or between teams as a whole (inter-team level) (Brewer, 2003). In this research, interactions are based on dyadic relations between team members of different teams. Therefore, inter-team task interdependence denotes “the extent to which a team believes it is dependent on other teams in the organization to carry out its tasks and perform effectively” (Drach-Zahavy et al., 2010).
Hypotheses Development
Inter-team task interdependence and boundary spanning
7 The greater the level of task dependence or interdependencies among teams, the greater would be the need to gather, analyse, and distribute information, get feedback from others, and coordinate tasks among teams. High interdependence implies the need of high coordination and of intensive interactions among teams (Somech, Desivilya, & Lidogoster, 2009). Boundary spanning activities play a significant role in this context because they are mechanisms that help to coordinate relations between units (Ito & Peterson, 1986).
Therefore, interactions between groups increase when teams have goals which are depend on a collective action between them. Since teams are dependent on other teams for input essential to their functioning and “they cannot internally generate all needed resources, they must engage in boundary activities to protect, preserve, or acquire such resources” (Drach-Zahavy et al., 2010: 144). As a consequence, teams need to engage in a high number of interactions in order to attain their goals. In high levels of interdependence contexts, expanding networks through increasing team boundary spanning facilitates the obtaining of resources needed to accomplish team’s objectives. The nature of goal relations is what matters in defining team member’s orientations and their behaviours toward members of other groups. When two teams have objectives which can only be completed if both teams cooperate, they tend to establish high number of interactions and cooperative behaviours.
Following this trend of research, this study presumes that a context of high inter-team task interdependence implies a high need of coordination between tasks and teams. In addition, boundary spanning behaviours are mechanisms to achieve coordination between units. Consequently, a context of high inter-team task interdependence among employees will imply a need of a high number of interactions between teams. Hence, the first hypothesis reads:
H1: Task interdependence has a positive relationship with boundary spanning; a high level of interdependence between teams generates a need of high levels of team boundary spanning.
8 Some of these factors derive from an inappropriate team boundary management. For example, cooperation may be difficult to realize when team members have different educational and functional backgrounds (Van der Vegt, Van de Vliert, & Oosterhof, 2003); hence, the level of diversity can be an obstacle in the creation of positive cooperative relationships.
Another source of negative responses to inter-team task interdependence arises when teams compete for scarce resources since the relative scarcity of resources and the availability of incentives or hierarchical control affect the end results of an interaction (Schopler, 1986). In these contexts, high inter-team task interdependence can decrease boundary spanning activity because teams are less willing to communicate and coordinate with other teams “to pursue their own interests at the expense of the overall organizational goal” (Richter, Scully, & West, 2005: 177). Consequently, competitive strategies can arise in order to achieve a greater amount of resources and power for the own team.
One more source of dysfunctional behaviours are incongruences in the perception of interdependencies between two units which can become a source of inter-unit conflict resulting in fewer connections and less boundary spanning activity (McCaan et al. 1979); due to limitations in processing and transferring information between units, imperfect conditions prevail (bounded rationality), and because of the self-interest for the success of one’s unit, opportunistic behaviour can arise (McCann et al. 1979). Hence, bounded rationality and opportunistic behaviour may decrease the number of the interactions between units. Finally, Somech et al. (2009) stated that intensive interactions between units (those that arise in high inter-team task interdependence relations) create more opportunities for intergroup conflict.
Organizational identification and team identification as moderators
The aforementioned findings with regard to the relationship between inter-team task interdependence and boundary spanning highlight the need to examine the role of moderators that can influence the strength of this relationship. Therefore, I suggest investigating the moderator influence that organizational identification and team identification can exert, since team membership plays an important role in how team members respond to other team members when they are in a situation of mutual interdependence (Brewer, 2013).
9 According to social identity theory (firstly developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner), individuals have multiple social identities; they define themselves as members of particular social groups. In this process, they ascribe characteristics that are typical of these groups to themselves. Individuals become attached to their groups when they are willing to incorporate the characteristics of their group into their self-concepts (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). As a result, “identification leads individuals to perceive themselves not only in terms of idiosyncratic characteristics that differentiate them from other individuals, but also in terms of the characteristics they share with other members of their in-groups” (Knippenberg & Schie, 2000: 138).
Social categorization helps people to classify themselves and the others in different social categories, evaluating distinctiveness between in-group and out-group members (Ashforth et al., 1989). Regarding intergroup relations, social categorization plays a crucial role defining relationships between groups (Richter et al., 2006).
When a collective is divided into distinct subcategories (like organizations do when they assign employees to different teams), employees develop different feelings of identification with the organization and with their team. Team members that feel highly identified with the organization, focus attention on the performance of one´s own and other teams, thereby stimulating cooperative relations with other parties and increasing the level of boundary spanning activity. The opposite is also true, in low organizational identification contexts, team members tend to make decisions on behalf of their team and are prone to behave less cooperatively (Kramer & Brewer, 1984). Team members behave in a competitive way with their co-workers because they focus on one´s own team which may reduce the willingness to communicate and coordinate with other teams.
10 their distinctiveness, thereby mitigating an otherwise negative impact of high group identity on intergroup relations”.
Thereby, in an organization with an effective management of identities among groups, and where teams are highly dependent on each other for resources, cooperatively relationships tend to arise. This reasoning leads to the following hypothesis:
H2: Organizational identification moderates the positive relationship between inter-team task interdependence and boundary spanning, such that the relationship becomes stronger when organizational identification is high rather than low.
The creation of a team within an organization does not guarantee that this team will actually function as a team, and the main reason of this failure is that they do not develop into a cohesive unit (Solansky, 2011). A challenge for organizations is to create teams with a sense of identification among team members because the output of a team depends on the strength of identification among team members (Solansky, 2011). When team members identify with each other, cooperative behaviours predominate; hence identification is critical to teamwork because “people’s level of cooperation with groups is primarily shaped by the extent to which they identify with those groups” (Tyler & Bladder, 2003: 355). Team identification is also linked with higher motivation, higher satisfaction with the work team, more compliance with team projects, lower intergroup conflict, less absenteeism, and less turnover intention (Richter et al., 2006).
Team members who feel highly identified with their team will act on behalf of their team. In a high inter-team task interdependence context, this means that team members will be more willing to interact with outside parties to achieve the necessary resources to accomplish their objectives, this will result in an increase of team boundary spanning.
H3: Team identification moderates the positive relationship between inter-team task interdependence and boundary spanning, such that the relationship becomes stronger when team identification is high rather than low.
Boundary spanning and inter-team effectiveness
11 high inter-team task interdependence contexts is crucial to have an effective system of channels of communication among all teams that constitute the organization to achieve efficiency in these interactions.
Inter-team effectiveness is about breaking down hurdles of communication between teams to speak the same language. Inter-team effectiveness can be improved through various processes, such as forming and enforcing organizational norms, building cross-functional objectives, and establishing clear lines of communications between groups.
In organizations where the work is distributed through different teams in a way that each unit performs a specific task which is used to achieve a common goal (e.g. an assembly line), boundary spanning activities help to coordinate interdependent tasks. Boundary spanning activities are also an important source of knowledge transfer within and between organizations (Argote, McEvily, & Reagans, 2003). This is important to develop, improve, and retain organizational learning (Edmondson, 1999). Furthermore, boundary spanning activities create opportunities for innovations which are also linked with both organizational and team effectiveness (Tushman, 1977).
Due to boundary spanning can improve the effectiveness of inter-team interactions, through coordinating cross-functional tasks and spreading organizational knowledge, we expect a positive relationship between boundary spanning activity and inter-team effectiveness.
H4: A high level of boundary spanning is positive related to inter-team effectiveness.
Based on the above reasoning, we propose that the level of boundary spanning activity may act as a key mediating factor between inter-team task interdependence and the degree of inter-team effectiveness. Hence, inter-team task interdependence has an influence over boundary spanning which at the same time has an impact on inter-team effectiveness.
12 Figure 1
Conceptual model
METHOD
This research was conducted to determine whether organizational identification and team identification play a significant role in the effectiveness of teams’ interactions through analysing their impact on the level of boundary spanning deployed by employees in a context of a certain level of inter-team task interdependence between them.
Participants
The four hypotheses were tested using questionnaires administrated to employees of the governmental organization OCCR (Operationeel Controle Centrum Rail) located in Utrecht, which is the national control centre for the Dutch railway network, established in 2010.
13 The size of the teams varies from 3 to 43 team members. From the 159 (n=159) questionnaires distributed across all teams, 141 were fully completed, resulting in a total response of 89.31%. Four managers (independent employees) were asked to fill in questionnaires rating the effectiveness of interactions between teams, four teams were not analysed in the managers´ questionnaire; therefore the data of these teams was dismissed. As a result, the total number of useful cases was 124.
The respondents were primarily males (82.17%). The average age was 45.25 years (SD=8.20), and the average tenure was 1.23 years (SD=0.74).
Procedure
The five variables involved in the model were measured through three different sources; two different questionnaires filled in by employees of OCCR, and a survey for only team managers.
The respondents participated voluntary and responses are anonymous to protect confidentiality. The questions were formulated in Dutch and almost all items had a 7-point Likert rating scale. Employees were asked to fill in two questionnaires that included statements of the different variables analysed. The first questionnaire contained information about inter- and intra-team task interdependence, organizational and team identification, problem solving, and some control questions. In a second questionnaire, respondents were asked to point out the units with whom they needed to interact in a specific day to perform their work; this provided the necessary information to measure the number of connections between units (boundary spanning). The team manager questionnaire contained statements related to inter-team effectiveness.
The level of analysis of this research (model, research questions, and hypotheses) is an intergroup level. Therefore, individual answers were aggregated.
Measures
Inter-team task interdependence. The questionnaire developed to measure task interdependence between units by de Jong et al., (2007) was used in order to measure the independent variable (level of inter-team task interdependence among employees). Two specific questions measure this variable, “How dependent are you on the other units of the
14
adequately?” Participants rated this item in a 7-point likert scale (1 = not dependent, 7 = fully
dependent), and for every specific unit in the OCCR. The second question was, “How
dependent are the other units of the OCCR organization on you for information, support, etc. in order to carry out their work adequately?” (Jong et al., 2007). Cronbach´s Alpha for these
two items was 0.828; therefore the scale has a good internal consistency.
Organizational identification. The survey included statements related to how employees feel part of the OCCR (see appendix A). Organizational identification was assessed by a 7-point likert scale developed from Mael et al., (1992), ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This scale had a Cronbach´s Alpha of 0.895.
Team identification. In order to measure team identification, the same scale (Mael et al., 1992) was used, and questions were adapted. Respondents rated to what extent they feel part of their team within OCCR in a 7-point likert scale. It had a Cronbach´s Alpha of 0.886. Items used to measure both moderators can be found in Appendix A.
Boundary spanning. Van de Ven and Ferry (1980) indicated that an approach to measure the intensity of external activities is by means of using communication frequencies among teams. To measure the mediating variable of boundary spanning, respondents were therefore asked to indicate the number of teams they interacted with. Specifically, they were presented with all the teams that constitute the OCCR organization and circled all teams with whom they had any interaction during a specific work day. The number of interactions between units was used as a measure of boundary spanning.
Inter-team effectiveness. The dependent variable was measured by a questionnaire completed by independent raters. These employees did not belong to any team and their task was to coordinate tasks of different teams. The intergroup effectiveness scale (Richter et al., 2005) was used and items were answered on a 7-point likert scale, ranging from 1 (not extent) to 7 (great extent). The questions were: “To what extent did both teams work
effectively together in order to respond to tasks or duties that emerged from working within the trust (e.g., coordinating cross-team activities, assignment of organizational duties)?” and “For this other team to accomplish its goals and responsibilities, to what extent did it receive the expected services, resources, or support from your team?” (Richter et al., 2005). This
15 Data Analysis
Analyses were conducted using SPSS. The conceptual model of this study, suggests a model with indirect effects, therefore the statistical technique that best fits is multiple regression analysis. In order to test the relationship between inter-team task interdependence and boundary spanning, and boundary spanning and inter-team task effectiveness, a hierarchical multiple regression analyses was used. In hierarchical multiple regression, variables are entered in steps, to assess the relative contribution of each block of variables (Pallant, 2010).
First, I standardized all the dependent variables and I computed two more variables to create interaction terms (team task interdependence*organizational identification, and inter-team task interdependence*inter-team identification). Then, I ran hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Finally, and in order to test the significance of slopes, I plotted the effects of the interactions following the procedure developed by Aiken and West (1991).
RESULTS Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all variables studied, these inter correlations are calculated through the Pearson zero-order method and they show correlations between the five variables.
16 Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Inter-team Task Interdependence 4.95 0.95 -
2. Organizational Identification 4.71 0.54 -.03 - 3. Team Identification 5.34 0.41 -.26 .57** - 4. Boundary Spanning 1.80 1.56 .66** -.29 -.04 - 5. Inter-team Effectiveness 4.38 0.66 -.28 .11 .22 -.23 - Note = 38 **p< .01 (2-tailed) Hypothesis Testing
Table 2 presents the results of the multiple regression analysis where boundary spanning was the dependent variable and inter-team task interdependence, organizational identification, and team identification were independent variables.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that a context of high inter-team task interdependence between teams lead to a high number of interactions between members of different teams; a positive relationship was expected between inter-team task interdependence and boundary spanning. Results show a significant and positive relationship (B = 1.137, p = .000), supporting this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2 stated that the positive relationship between inter-team task interdependence and team boundary spanning becomes stronger when organizational identification increases. Results show a significant and negative relationship (B = -.68, p = .005), rejecting this hypothesis. Hypothesis 3 stated that the positive relationship between inter-team task interdependence and team boundary spanning becomes stronger when team identification increases. Results show a significant and positive relationship (B = .58, p = .02), supporting this hypothesis. However, before to make any final inference, it is necessary to plot interaction effects in order to confirm these results (Figure 2 and Figure 3).
17 After running the regression, we know that the association between inter-team task interdependence and boundary spanning differs according to levels of organizational identification and team identification. However it is not clear how it differs. To enable interpretation, we plotted these interactions so we can interpret them visually. A common method is to use the simple slope; values that are one standard deviation above and below the mean (Dawson, 2013). This method allows predicting values of boundary spanning under different conditions. Results show the marginally significant two-way interaction between inter-team task interdependence and boundary spanning moderated by organizational identification, and team identification.
Hypothesis 2 proposes a moderating effect of organizational identification whereby the relationship between inter-team task interdependence and boundary spanning is more positive for high levels of organizational identification than for low levels. Results displayed in table 2 show that the predicted direction of the interaction between inter-team task interdependence and organizational identification is not confirmed since it was expected to be positive and it is negative (B =-.68, p = .005). Table 3 (appendix B) shows the calculations of the interactions. Figure 2 illustrates the effects of the interaction on boundary spanning; inter-team task interdependence is positively correlated with boundary spanning at both high and low levels of organizational identification. However, the relationship is less positive at high levels of organizational identification. Thus, hypothesis 2 is rejected.
Table 2
Results regression analysis, dependent variable: Boundary Spanning
Model Variable R R² Unstandardized
Coefficient (B) Standard Error (SE) Standardized Coefficient (beta) t Sig.
1 Inter-team Task Interdependence (ITI) .753 .567 1.137 .180 .745 6.321 .000
Organizational Identification (OI) -.640 .212 -.419 -3.013 .005
Team Identification (TI) .600 .219 .393 2.735 .010
2 Inter-team Task Interdependence .775 .601 1.076 .179 .705 6.006 .000
Organizational Identification -.535 .216 -.350 -2.476 .019
Team Identification .510 .221 .334 2.315 .027
ITI x OI -.273 .163 -.195 -1.674 .103
3 Inter-team Task Interdependence .815 .664 1.133 .169 .742 6.721 .000
Organizational Identification -.395 .209 -.259 -1.887 .068
Team Identification .465 .206 .305 2.253 .031
ITI x OI -.676 .224 -.483 -3.017 .005
Organizational Identification as a moderator of the relationship between Inter-team Task Interdependence and Boundary Spanning
Figure 3
Team Identification as a moderator of the relationship between Inter-team Task Interdependence and Boundary Spanning
1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
Low ITI High ITI
B ou n d ar y S p an n in g
Organizational identification
OI Low OI High 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5Low ITI High ITI
20 DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of organizational identification and team identification on the relationship between team task interdependence and inter-team effectiveness, through including boundary spanning as the variable that guides the external activity displayed by teams. This research provides new insights in the study of group processes, specifically, it deals with Joshi et al’s., (2009) concern that little attention has been paid to the need to study affective, cognitive and behavioural moderators processes that influence the relationship between inter-team task interdependence and external team interactions. Another purpose of this study was to link two specific affective processes, organizational identification and team identification, to the mentioned relationship. Furthermore, it tries to confirm previous results regarding the positive influence of team boundary spanning in inter-team effectiveness.
Research findings and theoretical contributions
This research showed a positive relationship between inter-team task interdependence and boundary spanning. Results are consistent with the literature about inter-team task interdependence and boundary spanning (e.g. Ito et al., 1986), demonstrating that boundary spanning is contingent on inter-team task interdependence (Drach-Zahavy et al., 2010).
21 Another possible reason for the stronger effect of low organizational identification compared with the effect of high organizational identification is that organizations with low levels of organizational identification are more heterogeneous than organizations with high organizational identification. This research was conducted in the OCCR which is an organization composed of various teams where each of them belong to a different organization, therefore we are dealing with an ideographic organization. In ideographic organizations each unit exhibits only one identity, often distinct from that of other units (Ashforth & Mael, 1996), and therefore their units are more heterogeneous. More distance between groups (e.g. when they are from separate organizations), means that organizational information is less shared and unequally distributed among teams, and employees need to interact more often with employees of other teams to obtain the information needed. Functional heterogeneity leads to information exchange (Drach-Zahavy et al., 2010). The opposite is also true, in contexts of high organizational identification, teams are more homogeneous; employees of different teams share more values, attitudes, and behaviours with employees of other teams than in contexts of low organizational identification. Therefore, they do not need to interact with outside team members to ask for practices and procedures because they already known “the way to work” of the organization. In other words, employees who feel highly organizational identified have well developed and shared mental models which decrease the need of information exchange. Consequently, low organizational identification can increase boundary spanning.
The positive estimated effect of team identification on the inter-team task interdependence-boundary spanning relationship has been confirmed. In contexts of high inter-team task interdependence, teams depend on outside resources, and external interactions are necessary to achieve teams’ goals. The effect of team identification implies that people who feel highly identified with their team display more often positive behaviours for the effective functioning of their team. In addition, organizations where employees feel highly identified with their team tend to be more heterogeneous, meaning that more interactions are needed to obtain the necessary information to perform team’s goals, as a result, team boundary spanning increases.
22 have shown a significant influence on inter-team effectiveness such as team composition and organizational context.
In the review of Choi (2002) about external activities of teams and team effectiveness, the identified factors proved to influence inter-team effectiveness were team characteristics including team composition, group development, and leadership; and structural contingencies composed of environmental characteristics, external interdependence, temporal fluctuations in external demands, and task complexity. This study suggests that more factors are needed to explain whether team effectiveness fully translates into inter-team effectiveness. Although boundary spanning activity cannot predict inter-team effectiveness alone, it is possible that it can be used to explain other critical team outcomes such as job satisfaction, employee motivation, absenteeism, and turnover intention.
Practical implications
We began this paper stating that is important for organizations to manage and to coordinate their tasks successfully because teams are characterized by having interdependent relations outside their boundaries. Now, we can advise practitioners trying to manage external activities in cross-functional or multidisciplinary teams. In contexts of high inter-team task interdependence is necessary to have mechanisms to coordinate activities among teams, as well to ensure useful efficient channels of communication in order to enable interactions between them. Our findings also suggest that is important to create a high level of team identification among team members because it may facilitate the growth of the number of interactions between units and therefore teams can achieve their objectives faster and more efficiently.
Limitations and future research
This research contributes to the existing literature about team boundary spanning by adding the role of organizational identification and team identification as potential influences. Besides these contributions, some limitations need to be explained.
23 “opposing team had a purportedly individualistic culture and reputation” (Polzer, 2004: 71). In other words, when the degree of differentiation between teams increases or when a team perceives the opposing teams to have an individualistic reputation (e.g. when groups belong to different organizations). High team identification should lead people to perceive a sharper distinction between teams, decreasing the willingness to cooperate and therefore the level of team boundary spanning, compared to those who identify weakly with their team (Polzer, 2004). The main reason comes from social identity theory, which argues that members of ideographic organizations may identify primarily with their teams, groups, or units (Ashforth et al., 1996). Consequently, more distance between groups means that inter-team task interdependence may entail competitive behaviours, decreasing the intention to cooperate and the number of interactions between teams.
Second, only one indicator has been used to measure the level of team boundary spanning which raises concerns about uncertain reliability. Although the number of connections between teams is a valid and often-used technique to measure boundary spanning (Van de Ven & Ferry, 1980), it may not be a comprehensive criterion.Future research using multi-item measures of boundary spanning could confirm and extend actual findings.
Finally, this study does not allow conclusions about inter-team effectiveness. Although team boundary spanning can be useful to assess other team outcomes such as employee motivation, job satisfaction, absenteeism, or turnover, it cannot make any inference about the effects on inter-team effectiveness. It could be possible that two teams with a high number of interactions do not work successfully because coordinated work does not entail a direct positive impact on inter-team effectiveness. A reason can be that the preferred boundary spanning activity (e.g. indifferently, competitively, free ridding, or cooperatively) determines the translation of team effectiveness into organizational effectiveness (Drach-Zahavy, et al., 2010) and to inter-team effectiveness.
24 Conclusion
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Ancona, D. G. 1990. Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 334-365.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. 1988. Beyond task and maintenance: Defining external functions in groups. Sage Publications, 13: 468-494.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. 1990. Beyond boundary spanning: Managing external dependence in product development teams. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 1: 119-135.
Ancona, D. G., &Caldwell, D. 1992a. Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 634-665.
Ancona, D. G., &Caldwell, D. 1992b. Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science,3: 321–341.
Argote, L., McEvily B., & Reagans, R. 2003. Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. 2003. Management Science, 49: 571-582.
Ashforth, B. E., &Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14: 20-39.
Ashforth, B. E., &Mael, F. 1996. Organizational identity and strategy as a context for the individual. Strategic Management, 13: 19-64.
Brewer, M. B. 2013. Intergroup relations. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.
Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83:2-246.
26 Cheng, J. L. 1983. Interdependence and coordination in organizations: A role-system analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 156-162.
Choi, J. N. 2002. External activities and team effectiveness: Review and theoretical development. Sage Publications, 33: 181-208.
Dawson, J. F. 2013. Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29: 1-19.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Thomas, E. L. 2013. Intergroup relations. In J. M. Levine (Eds.), Group processes: 323-349. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Drach-Zahavy A., &Somech, A. 2010. From an intra-team to an inter-team perspective of effectiveness: The role of interdependence and boundary activities. Sage Publications, 41: 143-174.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. 1994. Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 239-263.
Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350-383.
Fiol, C. M. 2001.Revisiting an identity-based view of sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management,27: 691-699.
Gladstein, D. L. 1984. Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 499-517.
He, H., & Brown, A. D. 2013. Organizational identity and organizational identification: A review of the literature and suggestions for future research. Group and Organization Management, 38 (1): 3-35.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 25: 121-140.
27 Huemer, L., Becerra, M., & Lunnan, R. 2004.Organizational identity and network identification: Relating within and beyond imaginary boundaries. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 20: 53-73.
Ito, J. K., & Peterson, R. B. 1986. Effects of task difficulty and inter-unit interdependence on information processing systems. Academy of Management Journal, 29: 139-149.
Jong, S. B., Van der Vegt, G. S., & Molleman E. 2007. The relationships among asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behaviour, and trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1625-1637.
Joshi, A., Pandey, N., & Han, G. 2009. Bracketing team boundary spanning: An examination of task-based, team-level, and contextual antecedents. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 30: 731-759.
Katz-Navon, T. Y., & Erez, M. 2005.When collective- and self-efficacy affect team performance: The role of task interdependence. Sage Publications, 36:437-465.
Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M.B. 1984. Effects of group identity on resource utilization in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46: 1044-1057.
Knippenberg, D., & Schie, C. M. 2000.Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 137-147.
Langan-Fox, J., & Cooper, C. L. 2013.Boundary spanning in organizations: Network, influence and conflict. Oxford: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.
Mael, F., & Ashforth B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 103-123.
Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. 1994. The interdisciplinary study of coordination.ACM Computing Surveys, 26: 87-119.
28 Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. 2007.A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behaviour. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1423-1439.
McCann, J. E., & Ferry, D. L. 1979. An approach for assessing and managing inter-unit interdependence. Academy of Managing Review, 4: 113-119.
Nuñez, A. N., Giachetti, R. E., & Boria, G. 2009. Quantifying coordination work as a function of the task uncertainty and interdependence. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22: 361-376.
Oh, H., Chung, M., & Labianca, G. 2004. Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 860-875.
Pallant, P. 2010. SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.
Pennings, J. M. 1975. Interdependence and complementarity: The case of a brokerage office. Human Relations, 28: 825-840.
Polzer, J. T. 2004. How subgroup interests and reputations moderate the effect of organizational identification on cooperation. Journal of Management, 30: 71-96.
Richter, A. W., Scully, J., & West, M. A. 2005. Intergroup conflict and intergroup effectiveness in organizations: Theory and scale development. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14: 177-203.
Richter, A. W., West, M. A., Van Dick, R., & Dawson, J. F. 2006. Boundary spanners’ identification, intergroup contact, and effective intergroup relations. Academy of Management Review, 49: 1252-1269.
Schopler, J. H. 1986. Inter-organizational groups: Origins, structure and outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 12: 702–713.
Smith, K. G., Carroll, S. J., & Ashford, S. J. 1995. Intra- and inter-organizational cooperation: Toward a research agenda. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 7-23.
29 Somech, A., Desivilya, H. S., & Lidogoster, H. 2009. Team conflict management and team effectiveness: The effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 30: 359-378.
Tushman, M. 1977. Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 587-605.
Tyler, T. R., & Bladder, S. L. 2003.The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior.PersonalityandSocialPsychology Review, 7: 349-61.
Van De Ven, A. H., Delbecq A. L., & Koenig R. 1976. Determinants of coordination modes within organization. American Sociological Review,41: 322-338.
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. 2005. Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 532-547.
Van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. 2003. Informational dissimilarity and organizational citizenship behaviour: The role of intra-team interdependence and team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 715-727.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Ferry, D. L. 1980. External unit relationship. In A. H. Van de Ven, & D. L. Ferry (Eds.), Measuring and assessing organizations: 241-294. New York: Wiley Interscience.
Vissers, G., & Dankbaar, B. 2002. Creativity in multidisciplinary new product development teams. Creativity & Innovation Management, 11: 31-42.
30 APPENDIX A
Organizational identification
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
When someone criticizes OCCR, it feels like a personal insult.
I am very interested in what others think about OCCR.
When I talk about OCCR, I usually say “we” rather than “they”.
This organization’s successes are my successes.
When someone praises OCCR, it feels like a personal compliment. Team identification
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
When someone criticizes my team, it feels like a personal insult.
I am very interested in what others think about my team.
When I talk about my team, I usually say “we” rather than “they”.
The successes of my team are my successes.
When someone praises my team, it feels like a personal compliment.
APPENDIX B Table 3
Calculation of the interaction effects of organizational identification
Low ITI High ITI
OI Low 2,034 4,484
OI High 2,482 3
Table 4
Calculation of the interaction effects of team identification
Low ITI High ITI
TI Low 2,335 3,055
