PERFORMANCE: THE MODERATING EFFECT OF INDIVIDUAL
FAMILIARITY WITH TEAM MEMBERS
Master thesis, MSc, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
January 11, 2020
THOM VAN DER BIJL S2973898 Regulusstraat 47 9742 LM Groningen Tel.: +31 (0)6-23465702 Thomvanderbijl@gmail.com Supervisor/ university Dr. Joost van de Brake H.J.van.de.Brake@rug.nl
Word count: 11973
ABSTRACT
Nowadays there is an increasing tendency of employees working in multiple teams simultaneously. Previous studies on such multiple team membership (MTM) have predominantly focused on the impact of MTM number on individual performance, ignoring the impact of MTM variety (e.g., the diversity characterizing the teams that individuals are part of and that a focal team overlaps with; O’Leary, Mortensen & Woolley, 2011). MTM variety is important to investigate because of its theoretical impact on individual productivity and learning. Therefore, this research focuses on MTM variety and its impact on general performance and innovative performance. Furthermore, we draw from role theory (Biddle, 1986; 2013) to propose that the level of individual familiarity with team members (e.g., the average number of years that an individual has worked with every other member of a particular team; Huckman, Staats & Upton, 2009) moderates the relationship between MTM variety and individual performance. We tested our conceptual model using data from a quantitative based research on predominantly Dutch employees in differing knowledge sectors (N=110). Our results demonstrated that MTM variety was not related to individual and innovative performance, and the moderating influence of individual familiarity on the relationship between MTM variety and individual performance was not supported. Together, this study leads to new contributions to the MTM variety literature and an increase in our understanding of MTM’s individual-level consequences.
INTRODUCTION
Today, organizations often use team-based designs in their operations and there is an increasing tendency of employees working in multiple teams simultaneously (Rapp & Mathieu, 2019; Chen et al., 2019). Working in multiple teams simultaneously is referred to by the term multiple team memberships (MTM). Organizations are using MTM because it provides them with the possibility to make efficient use of time and brainpower (Mortensen & Gardner, 2017). Moreover, when organizations assign people to multiple teams at once, these teams do a better job of solving complex problems and sharing knowledge across teams (Mortensen & Gardner, 2017). Although the appearance of MTM in modern-day team-based organizations is increasing, research on this subject is relatively scarce (Rapp & Mathieu, 2019).
Prior research has conceptualized MTM as the simultaneous involvement in multiple teams by an individual (O’Leary et al., 2011). More specifically, O’Leary et al. (2011) described two dimensions of MTM that can enhance both productivity and learning. The first dimension is the number of teams an individual is a member of (e.g., the number of unique, non-overlapping other teams the focal team’s members are involved with; O’Leary et al., 2011). The second dimension is the variety of those teams (e.g., diversity in tasks, roles, routines, locations, characterizing the teams that individuals are members of and that a focal team overlaps with; O’Leary et al., 2011).
simultaneously works in. Moreover, MTM variety is negatively related to individual productivity (e.g., De Marco, 2002) and positively related to learning (e.g., Mark, Gonzalez & Harris, 2005). Besides this theoretical study of O’Leary et al. (2011), prior research neglects the fact that individuals may have different roles (e.g., the behavior referring to normative expectations associated with a position in a social system; Allen & Van de Vliert, 1984) across multiple teams. Engaging in multiple roles could be detrimental to employees’ well-being. For example, shifting between roles is likely to result in role strain through conflicting experiences or an overload of demands (Pluut et al., 2014). For this reason, the impact of multiple roles may influence an individuals’ well-being and, subsequently, their performance. Moreover, the theoretical study of O’Leary et al. (2011) has created several important new contributions to the MTM literature, and they make it possible to assume that MTM variety may shape individual performance (i.e., an individuals’ overall contributions towards the organizations goal achievement across tasks and teams; Borman & Motowidlo, 1997) and innovative performance (i.e., the intentional generation, promotion, and realization of new ideas of an individual within a particular team; Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). Important to mention, however, is that existing empirical research has neglected the impact of MTM variety (e.g., O’Leary et al., 2011), so it remains unclear whether MTM variety indeed is related to individual and innovative performance or not. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to empirically investigate the possible effect of MTM variety with individual performance and innovative performance to increase our understanding of MTM’s individual-level consequences.
positive impact on performance, it is possible that this is not always the case. For example, an increase in MTM variety can lead to an increase in information exchange, but can also disturb analogical learning (O’Leary et al., 2011). Hence, MTM variety can have both a positive and negative effect on individual performance, but it remains unclear when these effects occur. Therefore, we believe that there are underlying moderators, which have an important impact on the relationship between MTM variety, from a role theory perspective, and performance.
This research strives to realize several new contributions to the MTM literature and, more specific, to the MTM variety literature. Building upon prior literature (e.g., O’Leary et al., 2011), we aim to get a better understanding of how MTM relates to general and innovative performance. More specifically, the goal of this research is to contribute to the literature about MTM variety and to get a better understanding of the potentially positive or negative effect (a) of MTM variety on individual performance, (b) of MTM variety on innovative performance, and (c) of different levels of individual familiarity on the relationship between MTM variety and individual performance. To achieve this goal, we perform a quantitative based research on predominantly Dutch employees in differing knowledge sectors (N = 110). This approach enables us to examine the impact of MTM variety on individual and innovative performance and the effect of individual familiarity on the relationship between MTM variety and individual performance. These relationships are presented in the conceptual model in figure 1.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Multiple Team Membership (MTM)
Individual MTM. Most prior research has focused on the team or organization level of
analysis (e.g., Crawford, Reeves, Stewart & Astrove, 2019). Following O’Leary et al. (2011), we cast MTM as an individual-level construct, which can be defined as an individual who is involved in multiple teams simultaneously and he or she could have different tasks, roles, routines, and locations in each team. O’Leary et al. (2011) and Mortensen, Wooley & O’Leary (2007) have mentioned the potential relevance of individual MTM, arguing that individual MTM may create new experiences and possibilities that can shape the behavior and outcome of the individual. Therefore, this chapter focusses on the individual level of analysis of MTM. Before defining MTM variety and explaining the impact of MTM variety on performance based on existing literature, we first need to discuss role theory which gives a perspective that will be particularly useful in defining MTM variety.
Role theory. We draw from role theory (Biddle, 1986; 2013) to explain the impact of
We believe that studying MTM variety from a role theory perspective will be particularly useful in explaining employees’ behavior in different settings (i.e., members hold different roles within multiple teams). We suggest that employees who fulfill different roles in multiple teams will behave differently in each team. In turn, this could affect performance.
MTM variety. O’Leary et al. (2011) have defined MTM variety as the diversity (i.e., in
tasks, routines, locations, and so forth) characterizing the teams that individuals are members of and that a focal team overlaps with. O’Leary et al. (2011) argued that MTM variety can have an effect at an individual level analysis. Therefore, this chapter focusses on the possible impact of MTM variety. In our research we build on role theory (Biddle, 1986; 2013) to define MTM variety as the diversity in tasks, procedures and interpersonal expectations, characterizing the teams that individuals are members of and that a focal team overlaps with. Importantly, these three aspects (i.e., the diversity in (1) tasks, (2) procedures and (3) interpersonal expectations, characterizing the teams that individuals are members of and that a focal team overlaps with) are together defined as MTM variety, which is one dimension consisting of three aspects.
The first aspect of MTM variety is the diversity in tasks across teams. Diversity in tasks relates to skills members are required to have, learned by experience or training, to perform their job within a specific team properly (Van de Brake et al., 2018). An example of this could be an employee that works at two research teams simultaneously and is doing the conceptual part of the research at one team and the statistical part of the research at the other team. Consequently, for each task the employee is required to have other skills to perform the job properly. Also, diversity in tasks relates to different working methods (i.e., tools, techniques, materials) members use to perform their job within a team (Van de Brake et al., 2018).
team (i.e., how the team aligns tasks, how the team makes joint decisions and, how the team resolve problems; Van de Brake et al., 2018).
The third aspect of MTM variety is the diversity in interpersonal expectations across teams. This aspect relates to the expectations of the leader of the team (i.e., how the employee performs on the job, when employees have deadlines of the job they perform; Van de Brake et al., 2018). Expectations of the leader of the team can differ. Based on their leadership style, for example. Leaders of a team with a participative leadership style (e.g., shared influence in decision making; Somech, 2006) could have different expectations of their employees than leaders of a team with a directive leadership style (e.g., establishing clear rules for behavior in teams; Somech, 2006). Secondly, diversity in interpersonal expectations also relates to characteristics of the principal or client that are part of the team (i.e., what do they expect of the team, how do they expect you to behave to customers; Van de Brake et al., 2018). In a MTM context, an individual has expectations of other team members based on their roles, tasks or processes within that team. An individual can also have expectations from other team members about dress codes, shared language and shared organizational routines, because these factors serve as a basis for relationships between team members (Wiesenfeld, Raghuram, Garud, 1999). Moreover, in the context of MTM, an individual is a member of multiple teams and he or she hold different roles in each team (Pluut et al., 2014). Therefore, he or she may hold different expectations of other team members in each team. For this reason, members of multiple teams may have no shared expectations but rather diverse expectations of other team members (Bosch-Sijtsema, 2007; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002).
MTM variety and performance
MTM variety and individual performance. The relationship between MTM variety and
amount of diverse information (i.e., increased information load). This will force him or her to put more time and effort in adjusting to different team contexts and their associated people, tasks, roles and so forth (De Marco, 2002; Milgrom & Roberts, 1992). Consequently, these switching costs will reduce individual productivity by increasing turnaround (e.g., the amount of time used to produce a given quantity of goods or services; O’Leary et al., 2011). Moreover, the more different the work settings associated with each team, the more switches between those teams disrupt routines and hurt productivity (Mark et al., 2005). Therefore, the variety of MTM is negatively related to individual productivity, because of the increased information load, leading to greater processing time and, subsequently, turnaround (O’Leary et al., 2011).
Secondly, MTM variety (i.e., diversity in tasks and procedures) has a negative impact on individual performance, due to the fact that when work is changed in-process, a team’s existing processes are disrupted. Subsequently, the individuals in the team may find its previous effort to be of little value due to wasted setup times and this has a negative impact on individual performance (e.g., Hopp & Spearman, 2008). A relatively high variety in teams an individual is a member of, means that he or she can have different tasks and procedures in each team. Also, when tasks change and a disruption occurs, the individuals in each team must allocate valuable time to readjust its procedures (McGrath & Kelly, 1986). Moreover, when tasks and procedures change across teams, an individual may learn that the new work requires knowledge or resources that the individual in the team lacks at that time and this has a negative impact on performance (Huckman & Staats, 2011). These issues may prove particularly problematic in a MTM context, where employees hold different roles in different teams and, therefore, perform different tasks and procedures across different teams. Therefore, we expect that diversity in tasks will have a negative effect on general performance.
therefore, he or she will perform less effectively (e.g., Rizzo, House & Lirtzman, 1970; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Moreover, the diversity in expectations within a MTM context is the result of the possibility that members are heterogeneous in organizational and cultural background, have different levels of history of working previously together and have different experiences of working in teams (Wong & Burton, 2000). This diversity in interpersonal expectations of team members can lead to a conflict between multiple expectations of other team members and the individuals’ ability to satisfy these expectations. This, in turn, can have a negative impact on the individuals’ behavior (Bosch-Sijtsema, 2007; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Hinds & Bailey, 2003). Moreover, when the expected behavior of an individual within a team is inconsistent, he or she will experience stress, become dissatisfied, and perform less effectively compared to if the expectations of the other team members were consistent with each other (e.g., Rizzo et al., 1970). These issues may prove particularly problematic in a MTM context, where an employee holds different roles in different teams and, therefore, his or her team members of different teams can have different expectations of him or her. Therefore, we expect that diversity in interpersonal expectations will have a negative effect on general performance.
expectations within and across their teams and this may lead, subsequently, to an increase in general performance (Huckman & Staats, 2011; Rizzo et al., 1970).
Taken together, based on the theorized negative impact of MTM variety on individual productivity (e.g., O’Leary et al., 2011), the expectation will be that the MTM variety will be negatively related to individual performance. Hence:
Hypothesis 1. Multiple team membership variety has a negative effect on individual performance.
MTM variety and innovative performance. A relatively high variety in the teams an
leads to an increase in individual creativity and, subsequently, his or her innovative performance will enhance (Parnes & Noller, 1972). Moreover, according to Perry-Smith (2006) variety within teams stimulates creativity-related cognitive processes and, subsequently, innovative performance (Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993). Hence, the variety of MTM is positively related to individual learning, because of the more diverse inputs and, therefore, more opportunities to learn (e.g., Mark et al., 2005; O’Leary et al., 2011).
A relatively low variety in the teams an individual is a member of, on the other hand, means that he or she has access to less diverse ideas and information and, therefore, less opportunities to learn (Mark et al., 2005). Therefore, the probability of tunnel vision will increase and the probability of better ideas and approaches to be discovered will reduce. Consequently, individual learning is less and, subsequently, his or her innovative performance will decline. Hence, the variety of MTM is positively related to individual learning, because of the less diverse inputs and, therefore, less opportunities to learn by a relatively low variety in teams an individual is a member of (e.g., Mark et al., 2005; O’Leary et al., 2011).
Taken together, based on the theorized positive impact of MTM variety on individual learning (e.g., O’Leary et al., 2011), the expectation will be that the MTM variety will be positively related to innovative performance. Hence:
Hypothesis 2. Multiple team membership variety has a positive effect on innovative performance.
Familiarity as moderating variable
Familiarity. According to Hanft (2002) familiarity can be considered as
team (Huckman et al., 2009). Based on the fact that teams are not stable in MTM settings and an individual is working in multiple teams simultaneously, we are looking at an individuals’ familiarity with all other team members in a particular team. It is important to note that in our setting, where teams are not stable, certain team members may have worked with one another on past projects that did not involve all members of the current team (e.g., Huckman et al., 2009). While prior research finds a consistent main effect for the impact of familiarity on performance (Reagans, Argote & Brooks, 2005; Espinosa, Slaughter, Kraut & Herbsleb, 2007; Huckman et al., 2009), we examine whether individual familiarity moderates the relationship between MTM variety and individual performance empirically.
Individual familiarity and the MTM variety – individual performance linkage. An
employee with a relatively high level of familiarity with the other team members, on the one hand, knows better who their team members are and what to expect from them (Maynard et al., 2019). When the individual level of familiarity within a team is relatively high, the relationship between MTM variety and individual performance will be less negative. This can be explained, firstly, by the fact that higher individual familiarity has a positive impact on coordination skills (e.g., Dalal, Nolan & Gannon, 2017). In the context of MTM, a high individual level of familiarity helps an individual by alleviating the coordination problems MTM may create (Huckman & Staats, 2011). A high level of individual familiarity in MTM settings may lead to disclosure of many problems by an individual team member, due to the fact that individual familiarity aids in the locating, sharing and application of knowledge resident within a team (Dalal et al., 2017; Huckman & Staats, 2011).
and use the ideas of others and this improves the information elaboration of the individual within the team. Consequently, an individual can handle the increased information load, which is a consequence of the increased MTM variety, better when an individual is more likely to be open for new ideas and information (i.e., improvement in information elaboration; Weick & Roberts, 1993). Therefore, the relationship between MTM variety and individual performance will be less negative (Nidumolu, 1995; Moreland, Argotee & Krishnan, 1998). Moreover, information elaboration has been shown to be particularly helpful and important in complex and dynamic situations (e.g., Homan et al., 2008), which matches with the context of MTM variety.
Thirdly, a relatively high level of individual familiarity has a positive impact on the willingness to engage in a team (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson, Bohmer & Pisano, 2011; Huckman et al., 2009). A high individual level of familiarity, in the context of MTM, will lead to individuals who feel more comfortable within a team through shared experiences of the team members (Huckman et al., 2009; Edmondson, 1999). Subsequently, this can lead to an individual who has more interpersonal trust in the other team members (Mortensen & Gardner, 2017) and this will, consequently, lead to individuals who are more willing to engage in a team with the other team members. The relationship of MTM variety with individual performance will be less negative, because the increased willingness to engage leads to an individual who can adapt better to their dynamic environment and, therefore, can handle the increased information load, as a consequence of the increased MTM variety, better (e.g., Weick & Roberts, 1993).
individual familiarity within a team is relatively low, the (1) information elaboration, (2) coordination skills and (3) willingness to engage of an individual within that team, will deteriorate (Maynard et al., 2019; Huckman et al., 2009; Edmondson, 1999). Subsequently, this may lead to an individual who cannot adapt well to the dynamic environment and cannot handle the increased information load (e.g., Weick & Roberts, 1993). Consequently, this can lead to lower performance (e.g., Nidumolu 1995; Moreland et al., 1998) and, therefore, the relationship between MTM variety and individual performance will be more positive.
Taken together, we assume that the level of individual familiarity has a positive effect on the relationship between MTM variety and individual performance, due to the fact that a higher level of individual familiarity could lead to higher individual performance through the increased communication and coordination skills of an individual (Maynard et al., 2019) and the increased willingness to engage in a team of an individual (e.g., Huckman et al., 2009). Hence:
Hypothesis 3. Individual familiarity moderates the negative relationship between MTM variety and individual performance. This relationship is weaker when individual familiarity is higher.
METHODOLOGY Data collection
(6) be a team, excluding student or sport teams. If a team met all these criteria, then the organization or team leader was contacted via email and the organization was visited, if possible, to meet the team leader(s) and the team members and to invite them to participate in this research with their team(s). The organization has been visited to explain the research to all team leaders and the team members of the participating team(s) in a face-to-face meeting to ensure informed consent and to improve participation rates. When both the team leader and the team members agreed to participate in the research, the necessary information about the participating team members were provided by the team leader. Finally, when a team has been approved by the supervisor, the team could participate in the research. Next, a quantitative based questionnaire was sent to the team leaders of the participating teams via Qualtrics. Another quantitative based questionnaire was sent to all other team members of the participating teams via Qualtrics. In the period from January 2019 to November 2019, the team leaders and team members filled in the questionnaire. During this period all participants received an e-mail to remind them to fill in the questionnaire to improve the response rate.
Important for this research was that we focused on the focal team an individual is a member of. Also, we looked at all the other individuals who were members of this specific focal team. Therefore, we focused us on all the individuals within one particular team. More specifically, we looked at the (1) level of MTM variety, (2) individual performance, (3) innovative performance and (4) level of individual familiarity of each individual within one particular team. Therefore, in this situation, MTM was the number of unique, non-overlapping other teams the focal individual team member was involved with.
Sample Description
and 435 team members could potentially fill in the questionnaire. In the end, the average within-team response rate was 77%.
Therefore, in the end 335 team members have participated in this research, of which 129 team members were involved in multiple teams or projects at the same time (38,5%). Moreover, from this sample of 129 participants, 19 participants (14,7%) had missing data for the variable individual familiarity. Therefore, our final sample comprised 110 participants (33%), of which 65 (59,1%) were male and 45 (40,9%) were female and the average age was 45 years (SD = 11,2). The average number of MTM was around 2 teams (i.e., in addition to the focal team; SD = 1,5) and the participants’ organizational tenure was on average 154 months (SD = 133,2). Measures
Multiple team membership variety. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first ones
In order to determine the reliability of this scale (e.g., Netemeyer, Bearden & Sharma, 2003), an exploratory factor analysis was conducted on these six items of MTM variety (see appendix B for details). One factor emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1, accounting for 61,3% of the variance. Therefore, the six items of MTM variety loaded on one factor, by which loadings exceeded .71. Moreover, a high reliability was achieved for our own developed measurement instrument to measure MTM variety. More specifically, the Cronbach’s alpha for the six-item survey measure was .87.
Individual performance. We measured individual performance of each team member
using a three-item measure (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004), based on the questionnaire sent to the team leaders of the participating teams. The team leaders had to answer questions about the performance of the whole team and the individual performance of each individual in that team. We measured individual performance using three items, which were adapted from Janssen & Van Yperen (2004). More specifically, the team leaders were asked to rate the extent to which each individual team member (1) works very efficiently, (2) delivers high quality work and (3) is performing well. These three statements were rated on a five-point scale (1 = ‘totally disagree’, 5 = ‘totally agree’). The Cronbach’s alpha for the three-item survey measure was .88.
Innovative performance. We measured innovative performance of each team member
innovative ideas systematically. These six statements were rated on a five-point scale (1 = ‘never’, 5 = ‘always’). The Cronbach’s alpha for the six-item survey measure was .79.
Individual familiarity with other team members. The moderating factor in this research
have been measured based on the data of how long, in years, a specific team member knows his or her other team members. Moreover, this team member needs to answer this question for each individual team member of every team this team member is concurrently a member of. More specifically, similar to Huckman et al. (2009), Huckman & Staats (2011) and Reagans et al. (2005) we measured individual familiarity by calculating the number of years each individual has worked with the other team members (i.e., using a sociometric approach in which all team members rated each other). Then, we calculated the average per individual (i.e., the average number of years the individual has worked with all other team members within one particular team).
Control variables. We considered some covariates that may relate to MTM variety,
2008) or team member (e.g., Ng & Feldman, 2010). Finally, the last control variable that was added was organizational tenure. Ng & Feldman (2010) mentioned that organizational tenure could have an impact on performance. An individual with a higher tenure has more job-related knowledge and has developed more skills within that organization or team and, for this reason, their individual performance will usually be higher than an individual with a lower tenure. Data analysis
measure the possible impact of MTM variety on individual and innovative performance and the possible moderating influence of individual familiarity on the relationship between MTM variety and individual performance. The effect of MTM variety on individual and innovative performance was measured in the regression analyses and multilevel analysis, above and beyond the number of MTM. Also, we considered a number of other control variables that may relate to individual performance in a MTM context. As noted before, these control variables were gender, age and organizational tenure.
RESULTS Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations and Pearson correlation coefficients for the variables used in the research (1) if MTM variety has a negative impact on individual performance and (2) if individual familiarity has a positive impact on the relationship between MTM variety and individual performance, with the control variables MTM number, gender, tenure and age. Regarding the main effect, MTM variety was unrelated to individual performance (r = -.05; p > .05). Also, considering the moderating effect, individual familiarity was unrelated to MTM variety (r = -.02; p > .05) and individual performance (r = .12; p > .05). Meanwhile, the moderating variable individual familiarity was highly related to gender (r = .34; p < .01), organization tenure in months (r = .55; p < .01) and age (r = .48; p < .01), such that males who are older and have a longer organizational tenure have a higher average number of years worked with every other member of the team.
performance (r = .44; p < .01). Regarding the control variables in the two regression analyses, the organization tenure in months was positively related to the control variables age (r = .67; p < .01) and gender (r = .17; p < .05). Moreover, the control variable MTM number was positively related with gender (r = .16; p < .05).
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviation, and Pearson Correlation Coefficients for model 1 & 2
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. MTM Number 2.07 1.50 2. Gender (F=0, M=1) .59 .49 .16* 3. Tenure (months) 154.18 133.15 -.03 .17* 4. Age 44.63 11.23 -.03 .14 .67** 5. MTM Variety 4.35 1.27 .05 .04 -.01 .06 6. Individual performance 4.07 .80 -.01 -.13 -.08 -.05 -.05 7. Innovative performance 3.33 .90 .08 .02 -.17* -.16 -.07 .44** 8. Individual familiarity 5.42 5.09 .09 .34** .55** .48** -.02 .12 .04 Note: N = 110 individuals. *p < .05. **p < .01. Hypotheses Testing
times that each individual member has worked with every other member of the team gets higher, the higher the individual performance. In the third regression analysis we added the interaction variable (i.e., model 1C). As shown in Table 2, individual familiarity was still positively associated with individual performance (B = .26, SE = .10, p < .01). However, MTM variety was not negatively associated with individual performance (B = -.02, SE = .08, p > .05). Hence, we found no support for Hypothesis 1.
Secondly, we used linear regression analyses to examine if MTM variety has a positive impact on innovative performance. As shown in Table 3, the first regression analysis (i.e., model 2A) only included the control variables. Next, the independent variable was added in the regression analysis (i.e., model 2B). As Table 3 shows, MTM variety was also not positively associated with innovative performance (B = -.06, SE = .09, p > .05). Hence, we found no support for Hypothesis 2.
TABLE 2
Moderated Results for the Relationship Between MTM Variety and Individual Performance
Individual performance
Model 1A Model 1B Model 1C
Predictors B SE B SE B SE 1. MTM Number .00 .08 -.01 .08 -.02 .08 2. Gender (F=0, M=1) -.09 .08 -.15 .08 -.15 .08 3. Tenure (months) -.06 .10 -.16 .11 -.16 .11 4. Age .02 .10 -.03 .10 -.02 .11 5. MTM Variety -.02 .08 -.02 .08 6. Individual Familiarity .25** .10 .26** .10 7. MTM Variety x .05 .10 Individual Familiarity
Note: N =110 individuals. Predictors were standardized. Standardized coefficients are reported. * p < .05. **p < .01.
TABLE 3
Results for the Direct Relationship Between MTM Variety and Innovative Performance
Innovative performance Model 2A Model 2B Predictors B SE B SE 1. MTM Number .06 .09 .06 .09 2. Gender (F=0, M=1) .04 .09 .04 .09 3. Tenure (months) -.11 .12 -.11 .12 4. Age -.08 .12 -.07 .12 5. MTM Variety -.06 .09
Additional Analysis
In an additional analysis not reported in the tables, we examined the relationship between (1) MTM variety and individual performance, (2) MTM variety and innovative performance, and (3) the moderating influence of individual familiarity on the relationship between MTM variety and individual performance, with a multilevel analysis with a random intercept for each participating team. Due to the fact that in our sample (N = 110) individuals were nested within teams, the data had potential bias in statistical significance tests (Hox, Moerbeek & Van de Schoot, 2017). Therefore, there is a potential concern that our results are not fully reliable. To consider this nested data structure, we conducted a multilevel analysis with a random intercept for each participating team. This additional analysis provided an almost identical pattern of results that we obtained from the regression analyses reported above. Therefore, even after considering the nested data neither Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 were supported.
DISCUSSION Summary
Nowadays, organizations often use team-based designs in their operations. Also, there is an increasing tendency of employees working in multiple work teams simultaneously (Rapp & Mathieu, 2019; Chen et al., 2019). Our research focused on such MTM and, more specifically, on MTM variety and its impact on individual and innovative performance. Furthermore, we draw from a role theory perspective (e.g., Ghobadi & Mathiassen, 2016; Biddle, 1986; 2013) to propose that the level of individual familiarity with team members moderates the relationship between MTM variety and individual performance.
relationship between MTM variety and individual performance, which was not in line with Maynard et al. (2019) and Huckman et al. (2009).
On the other hand, we did find support for an additional finding, where the level of individual familiarity was significantly positive associated with individual performance, which was in line with previous research (Reagans et al., 2005; Espinosa et al., 2007; Huckman et al., 2009).
Theoretical Implications
Together, these research findings make several important contributions to the MTM literature and, more specifically, to the MTM variety literature. First, the existing empirical research has neglected the impact of MTM variety (e.g., O’Leary et al., 2011), so it remains unclear whether MTM variety indeed is related to individual and innovative performance or not. Our present empirical research about the impact of MTM variety on individual and innovative performance lead to new contributions to the MTM variety literature due to the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, we are the first ones to examine individuals’ MTM variety across multiple teams empirically. Therefore, we developed a new measurement instrument consisting of a six-item measure of MTM variety, where we compared the individuals’ focal team with the other teams the individual is also a member of, based on six items (see appendix A for more details). Even though the results of our study were not significant, this study has led to new contributions to the MTM variety literature in the sense of being the first one to study the impact of MTM variety empirically. Also, we have developed a new measurement instrument to measure MTM variety, which has a high reliability (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha was .87). Future researchers can use this measurement instrument to measure MTM variety and to indicate its impact. Therefore, this study leads to new contributions to the MTM variety literature and an increase in our understanding of MTM’s individual-level consequences.
indeed had a consistent main effect on individual performance, which was in line with previous literature (e.g., Huckman et al., 2009). However, regarding the MTM settings, in our study we did not find support for the moderating influence of individual familiarity on the relationship between MTM variety and individual performance. This new insight showed that in our sample, in MTM settings, individual familiarity had a consistent main effect on individual performance, but its moderating influence on the relationship between MTM variety and individual performance remains ambiguous.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
could be tested more extensively within different industries with a much bigger sample (e.g., Eckstein, 1975) to make the results more valid and generalizable.
Secondly, we used the level of individual familiarity with other team members as a moderating variable in this study. To measure this moderating value, the open question was asked: ‘In years, how long have you known [name team member]?’ Because of the assumption that some participants will not know the answer on this question exactly for all their team members, a part of the participants did not fill in this question. More specifically, in our sub-sample (N = 129) (i.e., sub-sample consisting of team members who were involved in working in multiple teams or projects at the same time) 19 participants did not fill in this question for any of their team members, which is 14,7% of our sub-sample. Therefore, the missing data for the variable individual familiarity is relatively high, which limits the size of our sample and, therefore, limits our results in terms of validity and generalizability (e.g., Kang, 2013; Soley-Bori, 2013). Therefore, in order to measure individual familiarity better, it may be worthwhile for future research to transform and recode this variable from an open question to a scale variable. Based on Vagias (2006) individual familiarity can, for example, be transformed to a scale variable where the question gets rated on a five-point scale (e.g., 1 = ‘Not at all familiar’ (i.e., Less than 5 year), 2 = ‘Slightly familiar’ (i.e., 5-10 years), 3 = ‘Somewhat familiar’ (i.e., 10-15 years), 4 = ‘Moderately familiar’ (i.e., 15-20 years), 5 = ‘Extremely familiar’ (i.e., more than 20 years)). Our assumption is that participants do not know exactly how long they know each other, but they know it approximately. Therefore, using this above described scale variable to measure individual familiarity will hopefully lead to a question that can be filled in easier and, therefore, limit the missing data in the sample. Subsequently, this will have a positive impact on our results in terms of validity and generalizability (e.g., Kang, 2013).
other results. For example, our findings were not in line with O’Leary et al. (2011), which theorized that MTM variety was negatively related to individual performance and positively related to innovative performance. Therefore, future research about the impact of MTM variety on individual and innovative performance is necessary to conclude if MTM variety, indeed, was not related to individual and innovative performance and that individual familiarity did not moderate the relationship between MTM variety and individual performance.
Fourthly, the hypotheses of our study were not supported and, therefore, it is relevant for future research to consider additional mediating mechanisms in order to understand the relationship between MTM variety and individual and innovative performance better. The study of Van de Brake et al. (2019), for example, suggests that role ambiguity and work challenge may function as a key mechanism in the relationship between MTM and performance. Building on this study, future scholars could examine if these mediating mechanisms also have an impact on the relationship between MTM variety and performance. For example, MTM variety can lead to lower performance, which could be explained by role ambiguity due to the fact that when the expected behavior of an individual within a team is inconsistent, he or she will experience stress, become dissatisfied, and perform less effectively compared to if the expectations of the other team members were consistent with each other (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski, 2002).
Practical Implications
impact of the individual familiarity with other team members, when assigning employees to a team. In our study it is shown that individual familiarity was positively related to individual performance and, for this reason, managers should consider this impact more when making decisions about the team composition within MTM settings. For example, besides looking at the years of experience of the individual within a given role, managers should also look at the years of experience with the other team members when assigning employees to a team. In order to increase individual performance within MTM settings, managers should, therefore, consider the impact of individual familiarity when making decisions about the team composition. Managers could track data about the level of familiarity of each individual within the organization and, based on this data, they can make better decisions when assigning individuals to a team.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Allen, V. L., & Van de Vliert, E. 1984. A role theoretical perspective on transitional processes. In Role transitions, 3-18.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. 2002. A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1): 14-49.
Biddle, B. J. 1986. Recent developments in role theory. Annual review of sociology, 12(1): 67-92.
Biddle, B. J. 2013. Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behaviors. Academic Press. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1997. Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human performance, 10(2): 99-109. Bosch-Sijtsema, P. 2007. The impact of individual expectations and expectation conflicts on
virtual teams. Group & organization management, 32(3): 358-388.
Chan, K. Y. 2014. Multiple project team membership and performance: Empirical evidence from engineering project teams. South African Journal of Economic and Management
Sciences, 17(1): 76-90.
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.
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.
Dalal, D. K., Nolan, K. P., & Gannon, L. E. 2017. Are preassembly shared work
experiences useful for temporary-team assembly decisions? A study of Olympic ice hockey team composition. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(5): 561-574.
Doekhie, K. D., Buljac-Samardzic, M., Strating, M. M., & Paauwe, J. 2017. Who is on the primary care team? Professionals’ perceptions of the conceptualization of teams and the underlying factors: a mixed-methods study. BMC family practice, 18(1): 111.
Eckstein, H. 1975. Case studies and theory in political science. Handbook of political
science, 7: 79-138.
Edmondson, A. C. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2): 350-383.
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. 2001. Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46(4): 685-716.
Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E., & Herbsleb, J. D. 2007. Familiarity,
complexity, and team performance in geographically distributed software development.
Organization science, 18(4): 613-630.
Faber, J., & Fonseca, L. M. 2014. How sample size influences research outcomes. Dental
press journal of orthodontics, 19(4): 27-29.
Ghobadi, S., & Mathiassen, L. 2016. Perceived barriers to effective knowledge sharing in agile software teams. Information Systems Journal, 26(2): 95-125.
Hanft, T. R. 2003. Familiarity in organizations.
Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. 2003. Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization science, 14(6): 615-632.
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Knippenberg, D. V., Ilgen, D. R., & Van Kleef, G. A. 2008. Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of
Management Journal, 51(6): 1204-1222.
Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & Van de Schoot, R. 2017. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and
applications. Routledge.
Huckman, R. S., & Staats, B. R. 2011. Fluid tasks and fluid teams: The impact of diversity in experience and team familiarity on team performance. Manufacturing & Service
Operations Management, 13(3): 310-328.
Huckman, R. S., Staats, B. R., & Upton, D. M. 2009. Team familiarity, role experience, and performance: Evidence from Indian software services. Management science, 55(1): 85-100.
Hudson, J. M., Christensen, J., Kellogg, W. A., & Erickson, T. 2002. I'd be overwhelmed, but it's just one more thing to do: Availability and interruption in research management.
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems, 97-104.
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. 2009. Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of
Applied psychology, 94(5): 1128.
Inesi, M. E., & Cable, D. M. 2015. When accomplishments come back to haunt you: The negative effect of competence signals on women's performance evaluations. Personnel
Psychology, 68(3): 615-657.
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. 2004. Employees' goal orientations, the quality of leader- member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of
management journal, 47(3): 368-384.
Kang, H. 2013. The prevention and handling of the missing data. Korean journal of
anesthesiology, 64(5): 402.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations. Wiley, New York. Kearney, E. 2008. Age differences between leader and followers as a moderator of the
relationship between transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of
Mark, G., Gonzalez, V. M., & Harris, J. 2005. No task left behind? Examining the nature of
fragmented work. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing
systems, 321-330.
Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., R. Sanchez, D., & Dean, M. D. 2019. Do I Really Know You and Does It Matter? Unpacking the Relationship Between Familiarity and Information Elaboration in Global Virtual Teams. Group &
Organization Management, 44(1): 3-37.
McGrath, J. E., & Kelly, J. R. 1986. Time and human interaction: Toward a social
psychology of time. Guilford Press.
Milgrom, P. R., & Roberts, J. D. 1992. Economics, organization and management. Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. 1998. Training people to work in groups.
Plenum Press, New York.
Mortensen, M., & Gardner, H. K. 2017. The Overcommitted Organization. Harvard
Business Review, 95(5): 58-65.
Mortensen, M., Woolley, A. W., & O’Leary, M. 2007. Conditions enabling effective multiple team membership. In Virtuality and virtualization, 215-228.
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. 2003. Scaling procedures: Issues and
applications. Sage Publications.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. 2010. Organizational tenure and job performance. Journal of
Management, 36(5): 1220-1250
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. 2010. The relationships of age with job attitudes: A meta‐ analysis. Personnel Psychology, 63(3): 677-718.
Nidumolu, S. 1995. The effect of coordination and uncertainty on software project
performance: residual performance risk as an intervening variable. Information systems
research, 6(3): 191-219.
theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams.
Academy of Management Review, 36(3): 461-478.
Parnes, S. J., & Noller, R. B. 1972. Applied creativity: The creative studies project-Part II: Result of the two-year program. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6: 164 186.
Peppard, J., & Ward, J. 2004. Beyond strategic information systems: towards an IS capability. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(2): 167-194.
Perry-Smith, J. E. 2006. Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 85–101.
Pluut, H., Flestea, A. M., & Curşeu, P. L. 2014. Multiple team membership: A demand or resource for employees? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18(4): 333.
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, 3: 303-320
Reagans, R., Argote, L., & Brooks, D. 2005. Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management science, 51(6): 869-881.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. 1970. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 150-163.
Schilling, M. A., Vidal, P., Ployhart, R. E., & Marangoni, A. 2003. Learning by doing
something else: Variation, relatedness, and the learning curve. Management Science, 49: 39-56.
Shamir, B., & Kark, R. 2004. A single‐item graphic scale for the measurement of
organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1): 115-123.
analysis. Boston University.
Somech, A. 2006. The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and
innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of management, 32(1): 132-157. Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. 2006. Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination
and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 723-740. Vagias, W. M. 2006. Likert-type scale response anchors. Clemson international institute for
tourism. Research Development, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism
Management.
Van de Brake, H. J., Walter, F.H., Rink, F. A., Essens, P. J., & 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., & van der Vegt, G. S. 2019.
Benefits and disadvantages of individuals’ multiple team membership: the moderating role of organizational tenure. Journal of Management Studies.
Wegner, D. M. 1987. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind.
In Theories of group behavior, 185-208.
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative science quarterly, 357-381. Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. 1999. Communication patterns as
determinants of organizational identification in a virtual organization. Organization science, 10(6): 777-790.
Wong, S. S., & Burton, R. M. 2000. Virtual teams: what are their characteristics, and impact on team performance? Computational & Mathematical organization theory, 6(4): 339-360. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational
APPENDIX A
Measuring MTM Variety
--- The chart below is intended to compare your tasks/procedures/interpersonal-expectations across multiple teams. You will find 7 rectangles. In each rectangle there are 2 circles. One represents your task/procedure/interpersonal-expectation in team [FOCAL TEAM] and the other rectangle represents your task/procedure/interpersonal-expectation in another team. In each rectangle, the circles are overlapping differently. In the first rectangle (1), they are totally separate and represent a situation in which your tasks/procedures/interpersonal-expectations are completely different in both teams. In the last rectangle (7), the circles are totally overlapping and represent a situation in which your tasks/procedures/interpersonal-expectations are completely similar in both teams.
Comparison of team [FOCAL TEAM] and team [OTHER TEAM]:
Please take the time to think carefully about the differences and similarities between the multiple teams in which you are concurrently involved. Then, for each of the following six aspects of your work tasks/procedures/interpersonal-expectations, choose the rectangle that most adequately represents the extent to which team [FOCALTEAM] overlaps with team [OTHER TEAM].
1. The skills members are required to have, learned by experience or training, to perform their job within a specific team properly. [1-2-3-4-5-6-7]
2. The working methods members use to perform their job within a team (e.g., tools, techniques and materials). [1-2-3-4-5-6-7]
3. The expected results of the job the members perform within a team (e.g., expected results of products or services). [1-2-3-4-5-6-7]
4. How you collaborate with your fellow team members (e.g., how the team coordinates activities, discusses problems, or makes joint decisions). [1-2-3-4-5-6-7]
5. What the team leader expects from you (e.g., how to perform your tasks, when you deliver results). [1-2-3-4-5-6-7]
APPENDIX B
Table B1
Results of exploratory factor analysis of MTM variety
Factors
Items 1
MTM variety
The skills members are required to have, learned by experience or training, .80 to perform their job within a specific team properly.
The working methods members use to perform their job within a team .82 The expected results of the job the members perform within a team .81
How you collaborate with your fellow team members .71
What the team leader expects from you .78
