Multiple Team Membership, Burnout and Job Satisfaction:
The Moderating Role of Multiple Team Leadership
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
T. S. FOKKEMA (S3189198)
University of Groningen
Faculty of Business and Economics
Groningen, 9747 AE, The Netherlands
Tel: (050) 363-9111
e-mail:
t.s.fokkema@student.rug.nl
Multiple Team Membership, Burnout and Job Satisfaction:
The Moderating Role of Multiple Team Leadership
ABSTRACT
Multiple Team Membership (MTM) is getting increasingly prevalent in both theory and practice. This study investigates whether the extent to which multiteamers function as team leaders rather than as team members (Multiple Team Leadership; MTL) impacts the linkage between MTM and perceived autonomy. Further, it is proposed that perceived autonomy functions as a mediating variable between MTM and the positive (i.e., job satisfaction) and negative (i.e., burnout) outcomes of MTM. Data from a large, team-based, Dutch company were used to test the hypotheses (N = 594). The results demonstrate marginally significant evidence that MTL negatively moderates the link between employees’ MTM and perceived autonomy. Further, this study shows that perceived autonomy is positively related to job satisfaction and negatively to burnout. Integrating this evidence, this means that employees with high MTL involved in many teams seem to perceive more negative outcomes than employees with high MTL in few teams, while employees with low MTL involved in many teams perceive more positive outcomes than employees with low MTL in few teams do. Overall, employees with high MTL perceive more positive outcomes than employees with low MTL do. These findings identify relevant boundary conditions that can be used within organizations to explain when, why and how MTM may have positive or negative outcomes for employees.
Key words: multiple team membership; multiple team leadership; perceived autonomy; job
INTRODUCTION
Working in teams has become increasingly prevalent in both theory and practice during
recent years (Mathieu, Hollenbeck, Knippenberg & Ilgen, 2017). Generally, putting employees in work teams can provide an accumulation of different skills, expertise and competencies that can be used to solve difficult organizational problems (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). In an increasing number of organizations however, employees possess certain skills, expertise and competencies that are valuable for more teams within one organization (Crawford, Reeves, Stewart & Astrove, 2019). As a consequence, organizations place these employees in more teams at the same time, which is referred to as Multiple Team Membership (MTM; O’Leary, Mortensen & Woolley, 2011). At this moment, about 81 percent of the employees in global companies are working on more than one project team concurrently (Mortensen & Gardner, 2017). This number is expected to grow even more in the future (Rapp & Mathieu, 2019).
These contradicting consequences may indicate that there are boundary conditions that determine the outcomes of MTM. Identifying such boundary conditions has previously been mentioned as an important challenge for future research in the MTM field (Magnolis, 2019; Van de Brake, Walter, Rink, Essens & Van der Vegt, 2019). One fruitful boundary condition may be the role that an employee fulfils within multiple teams (i.e., team leader or team member). In the literature on team leadership, it is assumed that team leaders spend all of their time only on leading teams (Graça & Passos, 2015). However, O’Leary et al. (2011) noted that MTM often includes fulfilling multiple roles in these teams, and Mortensen and Gardner (2017) show that these multiple roles may involve both leadership and membership responsibilities. Hence, MTM introduces the interesting dynamic that employees can be the leader of certain teams, while they function as members in other teams.
This dynamic basically introduces a new concept to the MTM field. This concept could be called Multiple Team Leadership (MTL), which can be defined as the extent to which multiteamers function as team leaders rather than team members within their teams. Where MTM usually refers to the number teams that an employee is concurrently a member of, MTL focuses more on the amount of time spent on team leaderships relative to the total amount of time spent to team memberships (Pluut et al., 2014; O’Leary et al., 2011). Consequently, employees with high MTL spend their time primarily as a team leader, while employees with low MTL spend their time primarily as a team member. Since MTL is a new concept and has not been researched previously, the available knowledge on the effects of being a leader needs to be extrapolated to the effects of primarily functioning as a leader in multiple teams.
responsibility for the quality of the output (Saragih, 2011). This, in turn, leads to an increased work effectiveness and internal work motivation (Saragih, 2011). In contrast, Pinnington and Haslop (1995) note that team members generally receive less autonomy than team leaders. A feeling of low autonomy is generally related to an increase of work stress, burnout symptoms and a decrease in job satisfaction, although this also strongly depends on the personal preferences of the employee (Pearson and Moomaw, 2005). Concluding, there are well-grounded reasons to believe that team leaders may perceive more autonomy than team members, and that the effects from this perceived autonomy may be different.
Taken together, the overarching research question is: Does MTL influence the extent to
which multiteaming employees perceive autonomy within their teams, and does this in turn
guide the positive and negative outcomes of multiple team membership? By answering this
question, this study’s aim is to contribute to the relatively scarce and contradicting literature on the outcomes of MTM and the boundary conditions that determine these outcomes (Mortensen, Woolley & O'Leary, 2007; Rapp & Mathieu, 2019). Theoretically, this study adds to the MTM literature by providing insights into who (i.e., employees with high or low MTL) perceive (2)
what outcomes of MTM (i.e., positive or negative), and explains (3) how this process works
(i.e., via which variables). Practically, this study aims to provide information to managers about how to manage MTM within organizations in terms of granting team leaderships, team memberships and autonomy, so that the employees will benefit most from MTM.
This study uses data gathered within a large, team-based, Dutch company specialized in applied research, involving 594 knowledge workers with differing levels of MTM (N=594). The data was gathered at the end of 2018, via a quantitative questionnaire comprising all the relevant information for this study and by gathering all relevant archival data. The central conceptual model, which integrates the information provided in the introduction, is depicted below in Figure 1.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
In this study, MTM is defined as an individual employee’s number of concurrent and active team memberships (Pluut et al., 2014; Van de Brake et al., 2018). An employee who is engaged in higher MTM spreads his or her working time across a greater number of teams or projects, compared to an employee who is engaged in lower MTM (Van de Brake et al., 2019). Only team memberships to which an individual actually allocates working time on a weekly basis will be considered as team memberships in this study (O’Leary et al., 2011; Van de Brake et al., 2018).
Individual Outcomes of Multiple Team Membership
The literature on MTM presents a number of positive and negative outcomes for employees (O’Leary et al., 2011; Pluut et al., 2014; Van de Brake et al., 2018). One positive outcome of MTM is the expansion of learning opportunities (O’Leary et al., 2011). These learning opportunities specifically refer to the effective use of certain resources that were gathered in Team A, and can also be used within Team B (O’Leary et al., 2011). In this definition, Team B could either be a team in which an employee works (1) at the same time or (2) later than the employee works/worked on Team A. Resources that can be gathered by means of MTM involve for instance valuable experiences, information (on work procedures, colleagues, work methods etc.), certain tools or knowledge (Kwon & Adler, 2014; O’Leary et al., 2011; Pluut et al., 2014). MTM creates a situation in which employees get more opportunities to encounter these resources, which enhances the learning opportunities of these employees (Mortensen et al., 2007).
These switching costs stem from the task complexity and role unclarity that MTM creates by introducing employees to for example lots of different teammates, technologies and goals (Crawford et al., 2019; O’Leary et al., 2011). A small increase in time-constraints could lead to the development of an efficiency-based focus of the employee, which is considered to be a positive outcome of MTM (O’Leary et al., 2011). However, more often an increase in time-constraints means that the opportunities for an employee to learn are impeded, because employees simply have less time to spot their own mistakes (O’Leary et al., 2011; Moody & Galletta, 2015). The literature shows that this could lead to increased work stress and symptoms of burnout, which makes increased time-constraints a mostly negative MTM outcome (Van Sell, Brief & Schuler, 1981; Zika‐Viktorsson et al, 2006).
Summarizing the information above, MTM has certain positive and negative outcomes which may impact the performance, the stress level and the burnout symptoms of individuals (O’Leary et al., 2011; Pluut et al., 2014). As proposed in the introduction, this study proposes that MTL and perceived autonomy may play an important role in explaining why some individuals perceive either the positive or the negative outcomes from MTM. Perceived autonomy could be an important mediating factor, because employees may need to perceive a certain amount of autonomy to deal with the increasing demands of MTM (Pluut et al., 2014). There is evidence that feelings of low autonomy can lead to stress and burnout symptoms, and this may be of greater importance for multiteaming employees with low MTL relative to multiteaming employees with high MTL (Lesener, Burkhardt & Wolter, 2019). Therefore, perceived autonomy is considered to be a potential mediating variable in this study.
Perceived Autonomy and MTL
without any external interference in the situation (Jung, 2011). In this study, perceived autonomy will refer to the degree to which employees feel like their work provides them with freedom to (1) schedule work, (2) make decisions and (3) choose work methods for themselves (Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). The concept of autonomy was an element in the Job Characteristic Model, as one of the five motivating factors of a job that can be influenced by managers. This makes autonomy generally a relevant concept within an organizational context (Hackman & Oldham, 1975).
As mentioned in the introduction, the literature about the effects of being a leader is scarce at this moment. Though, there are some researchers who have quickly touched upon the subject. In general, Stanley (2006) states that team leaders can decide for themselves how they will carry out the work, and that team leaders ought to have more freedom in the process of planning than team members do (although there may be a definite exterior deadline). Further, leaders generally have more decision-making power within a team than a team member has (Pinnington and Haslop, 1995). Hoegl and Parboteeah (2006) state that project autonomy primarily resides with the team leader (and not with team members), because they are generally highly involved in the project and project decisions. This research seems to indicate that additional team leaderships (so that employees lead more teams at the same time) will make an employee feel more autonomous, simply because this employee can make more independent choices on planning and working methods (or: use his/her autonomy more; Jung, 2011). Following this rationale, it would be logical to expect that employees with high MTL (i.e., they spend their time primarily as a team leader) perceive more autonomy than employees with low MTL (i.e., they spend their time primarily as a team member). This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Multiple team leadership of employees is positively related to his or her
As mentioned above, employees with high MTL will have greater freedom to make independent decisions to schedule work and to change their own work methods than team members (Jung, 2011). As previously explained, engaging in more teams at the same time provides employees with learning opportunities (O’Leary et al., 2011). Combining these two statements, employees with high MTL will implement the planning methods and work methods that they think are the most effective (from learning experiences). Consequently, implementing these methods will not form a problem in the teams they lead (they have the most decision power; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). This means that employees with high MTL can make independent decisions in most teams without a problem, which increases the perceived autonomy of these employees.
Employees with low MTL generally have less opportunities than employees with high MTL to schedule their own work, choose their own work methods and make their own decisions (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). One reason for this is that employees with low MTL do not set their own deadlines in most team, but another team leader does this for them (Waller et al., 2001). Mortensen and Gardner (2011) already noted that this feels like being slapped about by different team leaders. As such, the increasing time constraints because of tight deadlines make that these employees cannot make free, independent decisions (O’Leary et al., 2011). Another reason is that employees with low MTL cannot implement things that they learned as easily as employees with high MTL, because they have generally less decision power (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). These two reasons make that employees with low MTM cannot make fully independent decisions in most teams, which decreases the perceived autonomy for these employees. The information above leads to the hypothesis below:
Hypothesis 2. Multiple team leadership moderates the positive relationship between the
number of an individual’s team memberships and perceived autonomy, so that this
Perceived Autonomy, Job Satisfaction and Burnout
The literature shows that autonomy is an important predictor for job satisfaction (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005; Taylor et al., 2003). Rationales that support this conclusion are based on the job characteristics theory, which argues that the task in itself is key in fostering employee motivation (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). The most important reason for this is that granting autonomy shows a certain appreciation for the work and trust in the employee, which is often also reflected in pay, fringe benefits, promotion prospects and job security (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005; Taylor, Bradley & Nguyen, 2003). As a consequence, employees generate feelings of significance, which leads to self-efficacy and job satisfaction (Langfred & Moye, 2004). Hence, by making the job more attractive (i.e., by granting autonomy) the job satisfaction of employees increases. This leads to the following hypothesis:
In the literature, scholars have extensively described the negative consequences of granting employees low autonomy. This is done based on the job demands-resources model (JD-R model), which argues that stress and burnouts are a human response to an imbalance between the demands of a certain job and the resources that are provided to deal with these demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Lesener, Burkhhard & Wolter, 2019). Pluut et al. (2014) show that MTM leads to increased demands. When no autonomy is granted, employees may not have enough resources to deal with these increased demands (Lesener et al., 2019). Concretely, research shows that the chance on burnout increases when employees feel that they are not in control (Kim & Stoner, 2008) and when they are not involved in decision-making (Posig & Kickul, 2003). Hence, by providing not enough resources (i.e., autonomy) to deal with the increasing demands of MTM, the chance of burnouts will increase. Burnout will be defined
Hypothesis 3a. The perceived autonomy of employees is positively related to his or
as a syndrome of emotional exhaustion caused by the work of an individual (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). Typically, employees who experience burnout feel that they lack adaptive and emotional resources, which makes them unable to devote any more energy to their work (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). The corresponding hypothesis reads as follows:
Integrating all of the hypotheses and corresponding argumentation, there seem to be two distinct patterns of conditional indirect relationships that represent a positive and a negative view on MTM, based on the roles that employees have within teams (i.e., leader or member). As noted within Hypothesis 2, MTL can influence the relationship between MTM and perceived autonomy for an employee, which can in turn (stated in Hypotheses 3 and 4) lead to either job satisfaction or burnout symptoms. Logically, then, MTL should also moderate the indirect MTM-job satisfaction and MTM-burnout linkages, through perceived autonomy. This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3b. The perceived autonomy of employees is negatively related to
symptoms of burnout.
Hypothesis 4a. The mediating effect of perceived autonomy on the link between the
number of multiple team memberships and job satisfaction depends on multiple team
leadership, so that this link will be stronger when multiple team leadership is higher
(rather than lower).
Hypothesis 4b. The mediating effect of perceived autonomy on the link between the
number of multiple team memberships and burnout depends on multiple team
leadership, so that this link will be stronger when multiple team leadership is lower
METHODS
Data and Study Design
All predictions were tested using quantitative data from a questionnaire that was filled in at the end of 2018 and archival data sources. This data was gathered within a large organization in the Netherlands that is focussed on applied research (e.g., in defence, innovation and engineering). The tasks that the employees carry out (e.g., civil engineering, software development and policy analysis) are knowledge-intensive and highly collaborative. Overall, the organization is mostly team-based, and within these teams the employees work on certain projects. This makes that these employees are especially engaging in MTM. The teams usually consist of about 2 to 25 employees, and the projects generally last between 6 and 24 months. In total, 3967 projects that were performed in 2018 were included in the data. Project leaders have additional responsibilities within these teams, since these leaders staff the project and attract the necessary funding.
Sample Description
In total, 2059 employees filled in the questionnaire at the end of 2018. However, there was some lacking information in the archival data source regarding who the leader of specific projects were. In total, there were 3967 projects of which 1140 projects had an unknown project leader (28.74%). This meant that there were only 594 employees left for whom all necessary information was available. Since this information was crucial for the computation of the MTL variable, and was therefore relevant for this study, the total sample that was used in this study consists of 594 employees (N = 594).
The average age of these employees was about 47 years (M = 47.14, SD = 9.66), and 70.5 percent of these employees were male (70.5% male, 29.5% female). Most of these employees were working full-time (FTE = 0.94). On average, the employees worked in about three teams (M = 3.19, SD = 1.54), and about 95 percent worked averagely on more than one team per week (564 of the 594 employees, 94.95%). The employees that were included in the sample have all filled in the complete questionnaire, so the response rate is 100 percent and there is no missing data.
Measures
Multiple Team Membership – Independent Variable. As mentioned above, MTM was
Perceived Autonomy – Mediating Variable. Based on Morgeson and Humphrey (2006),
perceived autonomy will be measured by looking at three different dimensions of autonomy. These comprise the freedom that employees experience in (1) planning their activities, (2) making decisions, and (3) deciding on work methods. Each of these dimensions were measured by showing the respondents the three validated statements (corresponding with the dimension) from Morgeson and Humphrey (2006). The first dimension (i.e., planning) consists for example of the questions: “I can determine my own planning”, “I can determine the order in which I
work on my tasks” and “I can plan when I do my work”. All questions needed to be answered
on a 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree) scale. The Cronbach’s Alpha for the three dimensions were respectively 0.86, 0.90 and 0.92, and the Cronbach’s Alpha for the combined perceived autonomy measure was 0.84.
Leader/Member Ratio – Moderating Variable. MTL was operationalized as the
leader/member ratio, which was computed using project information. To compute this variable, (1) the total hours spent on all teams by an employee, and the (2) total hours spent on teams in which a specific employee functioned as a leader were calculated. Then, the second variable was divided by the first, so that each employee received a leader/member ratio between the 0.00 and 1.00. Consequently, the higher the employee scores on this measure, the more time he or she spends on leading teams compared to being a member within a team.
Job Satisfaction – Dependent Variable. Job satisfaction was measured by asking the
respondents to express their satisfaction in their work on a scale of 1 to 10. Prior research has shown that this is a valid way of measuring this specific construct (Dolbier et al., 2005).
Burnout - Dependent Variable. To measure burnout, 5 questions were posed to the
statements like “I feel completely exhausted due to my work” to “I feel tired when I awake in
the morning and get confronted with work”. Respondents were asked to rate these statements
on a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). The Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.89.
Control Variables. As a first control variable, gender was added to this study. The
reason for adding this variable is that Pu et al. (2016) found that males tend to have lower job satisfaction scores than females. The information about gender was gathered from archival data. Further, the control variables age and organizational tenure were added to this study. Van der Brake et al. (2019) showed that organizational tenure significantly moderates some outcomes of MTM indirectly (i.e., absenteeism, work performance, role ambiguity and work challenge), and that organizational tenure is highly correlated with age. Hence, these variables influence the outcomes of MTM, and may also influence the outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction and burnout) that are used in this study. The information on age and organizational tenure was gathered from archival data.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
The correlations are for the most part consistent with the conceptual model presented in Figure 1. As proposed in Hypothesis 1, MTL is significantly correlated with perceived autonomy (r = .11, p < .01). Further, perceived autonomy correlates significantly with job satisfaction (r = .32, p < .01) and burnout (r = -.19, p < .01), as predicted in Hypotheses 3a and 3b. Though, there is no correlation between MTM and perceived autonomy (r = -.01, p = .80). The control variables organizational tenure (r = -.14, p < .01) and age (r = -.20, p < .05) are significantly correlated to burnout, but not to job satisfaction as expected based on Van de Brake et al. (2019). Gender does neither correlate with burnout (r = .06, p = .16) nor with job satisfaction (r = .06, p = .14).
---
Insert Table 1 about here
---
Hypothesis Testing
In order to test whether higher MTL leads to a higher perceived autonomy, consistent with Hypothesis 1, a linear regression analysis was executed with leader/member ratio as independent and perceived autonomy as dependent variable. The results showed that there is a positive effect (B = .251, t(593) = 2,543, p = .011) between MTL and perceived autonomy (R2
= .017, F(4,589) = 2,575, p = .037). Hence, in support of Hypothesis 1, this means that the MTL does significantly influence perceived autonomy.
than proposed in Hypothesis 2. For team leaders, there seems to be a trend that MTM leads to decreased perceived autonomy and for team members perceived autonomy seems to increase. Hypothesis 2 is thus unsupported and is therefore rejected, which means that MTL does not positively moderate the MTM-autonomy linkage.
---
Insert Table 2 and Figure 2 about here
---
Furthermore, to test whether perceived autonomy is positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to burnout (consistent with respectively Hypotheses 3a and 3b), a linear regression analysis was performed of perceived autonomy as an independent variable and of respectively job satisfaction and burnout as dependent variables. The results showed that perceived autonomy and job satisfaction are indeed positively related (B = .491, t(593) = 8,172, p = .000) to each other (R2 = .107, F(4,589) = 17.666, p = .000). Furthermore, the results showed
that perceived autonomy is negatively related (B = -.287, t(593) = -4,653, p = .000) to burnout (R2 = .072, F(4,589) = 11.489, p = .000). This means that the results support both Hypotheses
3a and 3b.
(estimate = .0309, 95% CI = -.0062 to .0775). There are also no significant results when either 1 standard deviation is subtracted or added to the leader/member ratio mean (see Table 3), although some are marginally significant. All the results will be summarized and presented in Figure 3.
---
Insert Table 3 and Figure 3 about here
---
Additional Analyses
A second additional analysis that has been carried out is dividing the perceived autonomy variable in the theoretical dimensions (i.e., (1) schedule work, (2) make decisions and (3) choose work methods; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Despite that Cronbach’s Alpha of the total perceived autonomy variable was high (i.e., 0.84), the literature suggests that some of these dimensions influence the outcomes of MTM more than others (Pinnington and Haslop, 1995). The results of this analysis did not provide significant results, however Table A in Appendix A shows there is a clear trend that the autonomy to make own decisions is more strongly related to the outcomes of MTM. Also, the moderating effect of MTL is stronger with decision-making autonomy as dependent variable (B = -.13, SE = .07, p = .054).
DISCUSSION
Summary
few teams do. Overall, employees with high MTL perceive more positive outcomes than employees with low MTL do.
Theoretical Implications
As mentioned in the summary, Hypothesis 2 was rejected because the interaction looked differently than expected. Hypothesis 2 stated that MTL would moderate the relationship between MTM and perceived autonomy positively, while the interaction turned out to be negative. This means that perceived autonomy from employees with high MTL in few teams to employees with high MTL in many teams seems to decrease instead of increase, and that perceived autonomy from employees with low MTL in few teams to employees with low MTL in many teams seems to increase instead of decrease. One possible explanation is that employees with high MTL may, in contrast to what was expected, actually also have certain dependencies which make them unable to act fully autonomous. These dependencies could include supervision from the management, customer requirements and administrative supervision (Bekkers & Homburg, 2002). This makes that employees with high MTL may not have been able to feel fully autonomous.
enough to feel autonomous in general, and that additional leaderships do not have as many value in terms of perceived autonomy (Moreau and Mageau, 2012).
This study makes some important contributions to the MTM literature. As mentioned above, the MTM literature called for research on boundary conditions to promote the positive over the negative MTM outcomes (Magnolis, 2019; Van de Brake et al., 2019). Such a call made sense, considering that more and more researchers began to look at MTM as either a negative work setting (e.g., Pluut et al., 2014; Zika‐Viktorsson et al., 2006) or a positive work setting (Chan, 2014; Bertolotti, et al., 2015). This study adds to the stream of literature that considers that MTM has both positive and negative sides (e.g., Van de Brake et al., 2019; O’Leary et al., 2011), and provides a boundary condition (i.e., MTL) that guides the outcomes of MTM.
Limitations and Future Research
Despite some strengths of this study, such as the operationalization of MTM over a longer period of time, the original research model and the additional analyses, some limitations need to be acknowledged. One limitation is the marginally significant results that were reported. This may be a limitation because Pritschet, Powell and Horne (2016) state that marginal results may indicate that the research methods were underdeveloped. Reflecting on the research methods used in this study, criticists could argue that the burnout variable does not fully follow the theory. In this study, burnout is completely operationalized in terms of emotional exhaustion (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). Logically, this seems to be the symptom of burnout that will resemble the outcomes of MTM the most, since MTM has been related to stress before (Pluut et al., 2014; Zika‐Viktorsson et al., 2006). However, the literature clearly states that burnout consists of three primary symptoms (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). Hence, in the operationalization of burnout, this study ignores the symptoms (1) depersonalization (i.e., cynicism, disengagement) and (2) reduced personal accomplishments (i.e., personal efficacy). For future research, it would be better to measure all the symptoms to check whether these are related to MTM.
research is needed into the elements that make this study unique (i.e., the effects of MTL, the effects of leadership roles on autonomy, etc.) to make this information useful for all kinds of different organizations (e.g., with a lower average organizational tenure) within different sectors, countries and cultures. Specifically, it could be interesting to check how MTL (or leader/member ratio) is related to other outcomes of MTM, since this promotes a more extensive understanding of a new, potentially fruitful concept (Luciano et al., 2013).
Lastly, the perceived autonomy variable may be more complex than it initially seems. Moreau and Mageau (2012) note that perceived autonomy differs a lot between employees. For example, the perceived autonomy of one employee who has never worked in a team with great autonomy before will be influenced more greatly by the addition of an autonomous team than an employee who is used to autonomous teams. As a result, the person who just entered the autonomous team is likely to indicate that he or she is more autonomous than the other person, while this would make no sense theoretically (Moreau and Mageau, 2012). To prevent this, future research could focus on measuring perceived autonomy for a longer period of time.
Practical Implications
more positive outcomes from multiteaming. The third and last recommendation would be to assign employees with low MTL rather to many teams (i.e. 5 or more) than to a few, since the results show that employees with low MTL in many teams perceive more positive outcomes than employees with low MTL in few teams.
CONCLUSIONS
This study aimed to answer the following research question: Does MTL influence the
extent to which multiteaming employees perceive autonomy within their teams, and does this in
turn guide the positive and negative outcomes of multiple team membership? The findings
REFERENCE LIST
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. 2007. The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22: 309-328.
Bertolotti, F., Mattarelli, E., Vignoli, M., & Marci, D. M. 2015. Exploring the relationship between multiple team membership and team performance: The role of social networks and collaborative technology. Research Policy, 44(4): 911-924. Chen, G., Smith, T. A., Kirkman, B. L., Zhang, P., Lemoine, G. J., & Farh, J. L. 2019. Multiple team membership and empowerment spillover effects: Can empowerment processes cross team boundaries? Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(3): 321–340. Cortini, M. 2016. Workplace identity as a mediator in the relationship between learning climate and job satisfaction during apprenticeship: Suggestions for HR
practitioners. Journal of Workplace Learning, 28(2): 54-65.
Crawford, E. R., Reeves, C. J., Stewart, G. L., & Astrove, S. L. 2019. To link or not to link? Multiple team membership and unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
104(3): 341–356.
Deci, R. M., & Ryan, R.M., 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55:68-78. Graça, A. M., & Passos, A. M. 2015. Team leadership across contexts: A qualitative study.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(5): 489-511.
Halbesleben, J. R. B, & Buckly M. R., 2004. Burnout in organizational life. Journal of
Management, 30(6): 859-879.
Hayes, A. F. 2018. Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85, 4-40.
Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, K. P., 2006. Autonomy and teamwork in innovative project. Human Resource Management, 45(1): 67-79.
Hurlbert, J. S. 1991. Social Networks, Social Circles, and Job Satisfaction. Work and
Occupations, 18(4): 415-430.
Jung, Y., 2011. Understanding the role of sense of presence and perceived autonomy in users’ continued use of social virtual worlds. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 16: 492-510.
Kim, H., & Stoner, M. 2008. Burnout and Turnover Intention Among Social Workers: Effects of Role Stress, Job Autonomy and Social Support. Administration in Social Work,
32(3): 5-25.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology:
Industrial and organizational psychology, 12: 333–375.
Kwon, S. W., & Adler, P. S. 2014. Social capital: Maturation of a field of research. Academy
Langfred, C. W., & Moye, N. A. 2004. Effects of Task Autonomy on Performance: An Extended Model Considering Motivational, Informational, and Structural Mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6): 934-945.
Lesener, T., Burkhardt, G., & Wolter, C., 2019. The job-demands-resources model: a meta- analytic review of longitudinal studies. Work & Stress, 33(1): 76-103.
Lloyd, C., King, R., & Chenoweth, L. 2009. Social work, stress and burnout: A review. Journal of Mental Health, 11(3): 255-265.
Luciano, M., Mathieu, J. E., & Ruddy, T. M., 2013. Leading Multiple Teams: Average and Relative External Leadership Influences on Team Empowerment and Effectiveness.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2): 322-331.
Main, L. C., Wolkow, A., & Chambers T. P. 2017. Quantifying the Physiological Stress Response to Simulated Maritime Pilotage Tasks: The Influence of Task Complexity and Pilot Experience. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
59(11): 1078-1083.
Margolis, J. 2019. Multiple Team Membership: An Integrative Review. Small Group
Research, 51(1): 48-86.
Mathieu, J. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Knippenberg, van, B., & Ilgen D. R. 2017. A Century of Work Teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology,
102(3): 452-467.
Moody, G. D., & Galletta, D. F. 2015. Lost in cyberspace: The impact of information scent and time constraints on stress, performance, and attitudes online. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 32(1): 192-224.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ):
Developing and Validating a Comprehensive Measure for Assessing Job Design and the Nature of Work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321-1339.
Mortensen, M., & Gardner, H. R. 2017. The overcommitted organization. Harvard Business
Review, 95(5): 58-65.
Mortensen, M., Woolley, A. W. & O'Leary, M. B. 2007. Conditions enabling effective multiple team membership. In K. Crowston, S. Sieber & E. Wynn. Virtuality and Virtualization: 215-228. Boston: Springer.
O’Leary, M. B., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A. W. 2011. Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. The Academy of Management Review, 36(3): 461-478.
Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. 2005. The Relationship between Teacher Autonomy and Stress, Work Satisfaction, Empowerment, and Professionalism. Educational
Research Quarterly, 29(1): 38-54.
Pinnington, A., & Haslop, D. 1995. Team leader autonomy in new product development.
Management Decision, 33(9): 5-11.
Pluut, H., Flestea, A. M., & Curșeu, P. L. 2014. Multiple team membership: A demand or resource for employees? Group Dynamics Theory Research and Practice, 18(4):
Posig, M., & Kickul, J. 2003. Extending our understanding of burnout: Test of an integrated model in nonservice occupations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
8(1): 3–19.
Pritschet, L., Powell, D., & Horne, Z., 2016. Marginally Significant Effects as Evidence for Hypotheses: Changing Attitudes Over Four Decades. Psychological Science,
27(7): 1-7.
Pu, J., Zhou, X., Zhu, D., Zhong, X., Yang, L., Wang, H., Zhang, Y., Fan, S., Liu, L., & Xie, P., 2016. Gender differences in psychological morbidity, burnout, job stress and job satisfaction among Chinese neurologists: a national cross-sectional study.
Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(6): 1-13.
Rainey, D. W., 1995. Stress, Burnout and Intention to Terminate Among Umpires. Journal of
Sport Behavior, 18(4): 312-323.
Rapp, T. L., & Mathieu, J. E. 2019. Team and individual influences on members’ identification and performance per membership in multiple team membership arrangements. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(3): 303–320.
Raziq, A., & Maulabakhsh, R. 2015. Impact of Working Environment on Job Satisfaction. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23: 717-725.
Saragih, S., 2011. The effects of job autonomy on work outcomes: self-efficacy as an intervening variable. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 4(3): 203-215.
Stanley, D., 2006. Role conflict: leaders and managers: David Stanley reviews the literature, and discusses his own research, on the difference between leadership and
management. Nursing Management, 13(5): 31-37.
Taylor, J., Bradley, S., & Nguyen, A. N. 2003. Job autonomy and job satisfaction: new evidence. Working Papers, 541528.
Van de Brake, H. J., Walter, F., Rink, F. A., Essens, P. J. M. D., & Van der Vegt, G. S. 2018. The dynamic relationship between multiple team membership and individual job performance in knowledge‐intensive work. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
39(9): 1219-1231.
Van de Brake, H. J., Walter, F., Rink, F. A., Essens, P. J. M. D., & Van der Vegt, G. S. 2019. Benefits and Disadvantages of Individuals’ Multiple Team Membership: The Moderating Role of Organizational Tenure. Journal of Management Studies,
unpublished manuscript.
Van Sell, M., Brief, A. P., & Schuler, R. S. 1981. Role conflict and role ambiguity: integration of the literature and directions for future research. Human Relations, 34(1): 43-71.
Waller, M. J., Conte, J. M., Gibson, C. B. & Carpenter, M. A., 2001. The Effect of Individual Perceptions of Deadlines on Team Performance. Academy of Management Review, 26(4): 586-600.
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. 2001. Team leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 12: 451-483.
Zika‐Viktorsson, A., Sundström, P., & Engwall, M. 2006. Project overload: An exploratory study of work and management in multi‐project settings. International Journal of
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Pearson Correlation Coefficients
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. MTM (average number of teams) 3.19 1.54
2. Leader/member ratio (Low=0, High=1) .46 .32 -.033
3. Perceived autonomy (Completely disagree=1,
Completely agree=7)
5.96 .77 -.011 .110**
4. Job satisfaction (1-10) 7.17 1.18 .014 .046 .320**
5. Burnout (Completely disagree=1, Completely
agree=7)
2.56 1.19 -.004 -.040 -.187** -.300**
6. Gender (Male=0, Female=1) .29 .46 .069 .027 .070 .061 .057
7. Age (in years) 47.14 9.66 -.015 .148** .013 -.055 -.196* -.307**
8. Organizational tenure (in years) 16.65 9.93 .084* .096* .021 -.022 -.142** -.221** .746**
Note. N = 594 individuals.
TABLE 2
Moderated Results for the Conditional Relationship Between MTM and Perceived Autonomy Moderated by Leader/Member Ratio
Predictors
Models effects on the dependent variable: Individual performance
Model without interaction-effect Model including interaction-effect
B SE B SE
MTM (average number of teams) -.01 .02 .05 .04
Leader/member ratio (Low=0, High=1) -.25 .10 .57 .21
Gender (Male=0, Female=1) .12 .07 .13 .07
Age (in years) .00 .01 -.00 .01
Organizational tenure (in years) .00 .01 .00 .00
Interaction-effect -.11 .06
Explained variance per model R2 .0174 R2 .0227
Note: N = 594 individuals. Predictors were standardized, unstandardized coefficients are reported.
TABLE 3
Conditional Indirect Relationships between MTM, Perceived Autonomy, Job Satisfaction and Burnout
Job Satisfaction Estimate; Boot SE 95% Lower bound 95% Upper bound
Index of mediated moderation -.0528; .0356 -.1271 .0142
Leader/member ratio -1SD .0173; .0175 -.0168 .0515
Average Leader/member ratio .0003; .0111 -.0217 .0215
Leader/member ratio +1SD -.0167; .0143 -.0460 .0107
Burnout Estimate; Boot SE 95% Lower bound 95% Upper bound
Index of mediated moderation .0309; .0214 -.0062 .0775
Leader/member ratio -1SD -.0101; .0105 -.0334 .0086
Average Leader/member ratio -.0002; .0066 -.0135 .0132
Leader/member ratio +1SD .0098; .0085 -.0050 .0297
Note: N = 594 individuals.
