BOUNDARY SPANNING WITHIN MULTITEAM SYSTEMS: THE IMPORTANCE OF BREADTH OF FUNCTIONAL EXPERIENCE AND MULTITEAM SYSTEM
IDENTIFICATION
Research master thesis, Research MScBA,
Specialization Human Resource Management & Organizational Behavior, University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics & Business
January 19, 2011 Thomas A. de Vries, Student number: 1737139 Kerkstraat 18, 9285TB Buitenpost Tel.: + 31 6 50 990 831 E-mail: devriesthom@gmail.com
Supervisors University of Groningen: Dr. Frank Walter,
BOUNDARY SPANNING WITHIN MULTITEAM SYSTEMS: THE ROLES OF BREADTH OF FUNCTIONAL EXPERIENCE AND MULTITEAM SYSTEM
IDENTIFICATION
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the role of an individual’s breadth of functional experience for boundary spanning behavior within multiteam systems and examines multiteam system identification as a key contingency factor in this regard. Results obtained from a sample of high-ranking military officers during an international training mission consisting of multiple, interdependent teams show that an individual’s breadth of functional experience is positively associated with boundary spanning behavior. This relationship was stronger positive for an individual who identified more strongly with the multiteam system. The insights from this study increase our knowledge of the antecedents of an individual’s boundary spanning behavior within multiteam systems.
INTRODUCTION
Organizational work teams do not operate in a vacuum. To accomplish complex tasks and respond to environmental contingencies, work teams operating in knowledge-oriented and dynamic environments must engage in external team relationships (e.g., Drach-Zahavy &
Somech, 2010; Rosenkopf & Nerkar, 2001; Smith, Carroll, & Ashford, 1995). Indeed, individual members of work teams need to establish linkages and manage interactions with other teams to organize task-related issues (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992b; Marrone, 2010). Researchers generally refer to such behaviors as ‘boundary spanning behavior’ (Davison & Hollenbeck, In press), and have established its importance for team performance (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992b; Choi, 2002; Mathieu, Maynard, Taylor, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2007), as well as the performance of collections of interdependent teams (i.e., multiteam systems; DeChurch & Marks, 2006; Marks, DeChurch, Mathieu, Panzer, & Alonso, 2005).
Despite the importance of boundary spanning behavior, we know relatively little about the antecedents of such behavior. Prior research on this issue has typically focused on team
why some individual team members engage in more boundary spanning behavior than others (Marrone, 2004).
The purpose of this study is to examine the role of two important antecedents that potentially influence an individual’s boundary spanning behavior, namely breadth of functional experience (i.e., an individual’s work history across different functional specializations, such as operations, logistics, finance, etc.) and identification with the collective multiteam system (i.e., an individual’s perceptions of oneness with the multiteam system). In line with previous theory building efforts (Joshi, 2006; Joshi et al., 2009), we draw on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1985) to suggest that an individual’s breadth of functional experience enables him or her to develop positive perceptions of other teams’ contributions to the multiteam system, which, in turn, stimulate boundary spanning behavior. In addition, we introduce an individual’s multiteam system identification as a moderator that determines to what extent an individual feels connected to other teams, as subparts of the overarching multiteam system, and is inclined to integrate those teams’ non-comparable and complementary actions through boundary spanning behavior.
Second, this study explicitly addresses the moderating role of multiteam system
identification. While previous research established the moderating role of such identification for the effectiveness of individuals who are formally appointed to key boundary spanning positions (e.g., organization and team representatives; Bartel, 2001; Richter, West, van Dick, & Dawson, 2006), its association with the emergence of boundary spanning is still unclear. An important issue therefore remains unaddressed, considering that boundary spanning behavior is often at the discretion of key informal boundary spanners (Allen, James, & Gamlen, 2007; Kratzer,
Gemünden, & Lettl, 2008; Levina & Vaast, 2005) and appointed boundary spanners’ engagement in specific boundary spanning tasks varies widely (Bettencourt & Brown, 2003; Bettencourt, Brown, & MacKenzie, 2005). Therefore, we advance current insights in the role of identification and consider it as a key conditioning factor for the inception of an individual’s boundary
spanning behavior.
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
member obtained most of his or her experience) in relation to that of other team members, irrespective of any additional experience an individual might have (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002). Breadth of functional experience is maximized when an individual’s work experience is evenly distributed over all relevant functional domains that are present within a multiteam system and minimized when an individual obtained all his or her experience in a single functional
domain.
We define boundary spanning as an individual’s task-coordination efforts, aimed at behaviorally synchronizing and aligning actions with those of other teams within the multiteam system. Past research suggests that boundary spanning can reflect different types of task-related interactions with external teams, such as searching for external information (i.e., information scouting), representing one’s own team’s interests and achievements (i.e., ambassadorial activities and representation), and aligning and synchronizing teams’ actions (i.e., task coordination; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992b; Joshi et al., 2009; Marrone, 2010). We focus on an individual’s task-coordination, because this type of boundary spanning is most influential for performance (cf., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992b; Hoegl & Weinkauf, 2005; Hoegl, Weinkauf, & Gemuenden, 2004; Joshi et al., 2009), especially within multiteam system were outcomes are shaped by considerable interdependencies between teams (e.g., Davison, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Barnes, & Sleesman, 2010; DeChurch & Marks, 2006; Marks et al., 2005; Marrone, 2010). Breadth of Functional Experience and Boundary Spanning
categorization generate behavior such as cooperation with members of one’s own group and conformity to group norms, in conjunction with stereotyping of, and discrimination against, members of other groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). In a multiteam system, comprising multiple teams, such categorization processes cause an individual to focus on his or her own team and avoid boundary spanning with other teams (Joshi et al., 2009). As such, social categorization processes give rise to tendencies to favor the members of one’s own team over those of other teams during the distribution of resources (i.e., in-group favoritism) and may result in mistrust of members from other teams (Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002). Social categorization processes also bias an individual’s perceptions of other teams’ competences: collective successes are attributed to one’s own team’s capabilities, whereas failures are considered to be the result of other teams’ lack of competence (Hewstone, 1990; Pettigrew, 1979; Taylor & Jaggi, 1974). Such unfavorable out-group classification may cause an individual to be overly attentive to intra-team processes and fellow team members, at the expense of his or her boundary spanning behavior (Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009; Harinck & Ellemers, 2006).
An individual’s breadth of functional experience can decrease such negative social categorization processes and thereby stimulate boundary spanning. Experience within various functional domains provides an individual with knowledge of the non-comparable and
complementary nature of other teams’ potential contributions to his or her own team’s processes and outcomes (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Cannella, Park, & Lee, 2008). Also, broad
functional experience can make an individual more familiar with other teams’ jargon,
breadth of functional experience may reduce an individual’s use of subjective social
categorizations to interpret other teams’ roles within the multiteam system (Grieve & Hogg, 1999; Hogg, 2000; Hogg & Abrams, 1993), prevents negative biases towards those teams, and makes an individual more open for boundary spanning (Brown & Wade, 1987; Gaertner et al., 2000; Hewstone & Brown, 1986). Consistent with this reasoning, previous has research shown that an individual with extensive knowledge is more likely to feel responsible and to be selected for boundary spanning tasks (Levina & Vaast, 2005; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981a; 1981b), because of his or her adaptability in new situations, openness to external information, and ability to integrate fellow team members’ information and perceptions (Bunderson, 2003; Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Campion, Cheraskin, & Stevens, 1994; Cannella et al., 2008; Marks, Sabella, Burke, & Zaccaro, 2002). Taken together, an individual’s experience in a variety of functional domains enables this person to develop more accurate perceptions of other teams, which
mitigates unfavorable social categorization processes and increases the likelihood that he or she engages in boundary spanning behavior.
Hypothesis 1: An individual’s breadth of functional experience is positively related to this individual’s boundary spanning behavior.
The Moderating Role of Multiteam System Identification
As argued before, an individual’s breadth of functional experience may positively associate with boundary spanning behavior by diminishing negative social categorization
and personalizes its successes and failures (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Vora & Kostova, 2007). Such identification connects an individual to other teams within the multiteam system through perceived membership of a common in-group (i.e., the multiteam system) (Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993; Gaertner, Dovidio, & Bachman, 1996). In turn, we suggest that multiteam system identification will motivate an individual to utilize his or her broad functional experience to span boundaries within that in-group (Levina & Vaast, 2005).
spanning activities (Macdonald & Williams, 1993). In other words, we suggest that individuals who do not identify with the overall multiteam system are less likely to draw on the boundary spanning potentials their breadth of functional experiences provides, because the individual costs associated with boundary spanning may, for these individuals outweigh collective benefits.
In contrast, we argue that breadth of functional experience strongly and positively relates to boundary spanning when an individual does identify with the multiteam system. In this situation, the individual attaches high value to the overall multiteam system and its shared outcomes (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ellemers & Rink, 2005; Ullrich, Wieseke, Christ, Schulze, & van Dick, 2007). Hence, the personal costs associated with boundary spanning may carry
relatively less weight, as compared to its collective benefits (e.g., increased alignment and reduced conflict between teams; DeChurch & Marks, 2006; Marks et al., 2005; Nelson, 1989; Zaccaro et al., In press). As outlined before, it may nevertheless remain difficult to engage in boundary spanning behavior for an individual with low breadth of functional experience due to his or her negative social categorization of other teams. An individual with a broad functional background who strongly identifies with the multiteam system, however, may be highly motivated for boundary spanning, given that he or she will tend to evaluate other component teams in a rather positive light and attaches high salience to the multiteam systems’ goal achievement (Gaertner et al., 2000; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a; 2000b). Taken together, we therefore argue that a person who strongly identifies with the multiteam system as a whole will feel particularly inclined to actively support the multiteam system through boundary spanning behavior if he or she has high breadth of functional experience.
spanning behavior. This relationship is amplified when multiteam system identification is stronger, rather than weaker.
METHODS Research Context
The multiteam system setting for our study was a two-week training mission of a multi-national, deployable army command center designed to direct military operations involving over 60,000 people. This command center comprises 150 military officers in 26 specialized staff teams representing numerous functional areas (e.g., personnel, engineering, logistics, communication, finance, intelligence, operations, etc.). In addition, the command center heavily draws on other military and civil (e.g., local authorities, humanitarian organizations) units and teams for expertise, resources, and strategic and operational support. Mission success is contingent on successful integration of contributions from these diverse and partially autonomous entities. Hence, individual members’ boundary spanning between teams and units is encouraged, as reflected in the command center’s “comprehensive approach” philosophy to military operations, which emphasizes the importance of cooperation to achieve effective stability and reconstruction in operational areas.
differing proximal goals, all teams share a common distal goal (i.e., mission accomplishment), and (c) teams within the multiteam system are closely interdependent with each other. Hence, this study context enabled us to examine boundary spanning between members of teams within a real-life multiteam system.
Sample and Procedure
Targeted participants were all 150 military officers that participated in the command center’s training mission. Electronic questionnaires were sent to potential study participants two days before the end of the mission through an encrypted military network, using a unique reply address only accessible to one military operator and one of the authors who was present on-site. Data collection was supported by the command center’s top leadership and announced in a pre-mission briefing. Participation was voluntary and anonymity assured. Fifty-nine officers (who were distributed across 21 teams) returned a completed, usable survey, for an overall response rate of 39 percent. We note that this response rate compares favorably with much previous research that has used high-level managerial samples (Cycyota & Harrison, 2006). All study participants were male, and the majority was older than 36 years (88%). Military ranks in our sample ranged from Warrant Officer to Colonel, with 91 percent of participants located at the rank of Lieutenant or higher.
Measures
Breadth of functional experience. We measured breadth of functional experience by
requesting each individual to indicate the number of missions he or she had completed,
missions while working in a specific functional domain (e.g., training exercises, military deployments), was the strongest indicator of a military officer’s experience in the respective domain.
Based on these data, we calculated each member’s breadth of functional experience, using Bunderson’s (2003) adapted version of Blau’s (1977) heterogeneity index:
where pi is the percentage of the total missions an individual completed while working in the ith functional domain. This resulted in standardized scores for breadth of functional experience on a scale ranging from 0 (minimum breadth of functional experience, i.e., all missions accomplished were in the same functional domain) to 1 (maximum breadth of functional experience, i.e., missions accomplished were evenly distributed over all ten functional domains).
Boundary spanning. In line with previous research (e.g., Hansen, Mors, & Lovas, 2005;
Tsai, 2001), we measured boundary spanning with a single network item. Specifically, we provided participants with a list of all teams within the command center and all relevant external entities and asked each individual to tick each team/entity he or she had directly coordinated with during the current training mission. We then calculated boundary spanning as the sum of an individual’s coordination efforts with other teams and representatives.
Multiteam system identification. We gauged multiteam system identification with three
says “we” rather than “I” when talking about the command center, and (c) whether he or she perceives the successes of the command center as his or her successes. All items were answered on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree);
Cronbach’s alpha was .78.
Control variables. We considered an individual’s total experience and age as sample
covariates to rule out some competing explanations (cf. Ancona, 1990a; Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002). Total experience was measured through an individual’s total number of completed missions. Age was measured with a categorical variable to guarantee anonymity of respondents. Because of the low number of respondents between 26 and 35 years of age (i.e., 7%), we coded age as a dummy variable (0 = below 45 years; 1 = above 45 years).
Furthermore, subject matter experts indicated that coordination with other units was particularly important for two specific teams within the command center (i.e., the Plans and Operations teams); hence, we expected members of these two teams to generally engage in more boundary spanning. Therefore, we included a dummy variable in all analyses which accounted for an individual’s memberships in either of those teams versus all other teams. Eleven
respondents (19%) were part of the Plans or Operations team, whereas the remaining 48 respondents (81%) worked in other teams.
Data Analysis
chi-square difference between two subsequent models indicates changes in model fit. We further calculated proportions of explained variance using Snijders & Bosker’s (1999: 102-103) formula, which is comparable to the R-square statistics obtained from ordinary regression analysis. In sum, these multilevel analyses allowed us to test our individual-level hypotheses while taking potential effects of team membership into account. Independent variables were standardized prior to the analyses (Aiken & West, 1991).
RESULTS Descriptive Statistics
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations are reported in Table 1. As shown, an individual’s breadth of functional experience was significantly correlated with boundary spanning (r = .40, p < .01), thus corroborating our expectations. Because of the nested structure of the data, however, we note that correlation coefficients should be interpreted with caution.
Of the control variables, boundary spanning was significantly related to an individual’s age (r = .40, p < .01) and total experience (r = .37, p < .01) and marginally related to an
individual’s membership of teams with coordinative tasks (r = .22, p = .09). Hence, we followed Becker’s (2005) recommendations and retained these control variables when testing the study’s hypotheses. Notably, however, results remained virtually unchanged when excluding the control variables.
--- INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE --- Hypotheses Testing
analyses supported this hypothesis. After controlling for study covariates and multiteam system identification, breadth of functional experience still exhibited a positive association with an individual member’s boundary spanning behavior (B = 1.41, p < .05).
Hypothesis 2 predicted an individual’s multiteam system identification to moderate the relationship between this person’s breadth of functional experience and boundary spanning. To test this hypothesis, we included the multiplicative interaction term of breadth of functional experience with multiteam system identification in the multilevel analyses of an individual’s boundary spanning behavior, after considering study covariates and main effects. As shown in Table 2 (Model 3), this interaction coefficient was significantly related with boundary spanning (B = 1.09, p < .05). As recommended by Aiken & West (1991), we graphically explored this moderated relationship in Figure 1. As expected, breadth of functional experience was positively related with an individual’s boundary spanning behavior when multiteam system identification was higher (simple slope at +1 SD: B = 2.49, p < .01), while this relationship was non-significant at lower levels of multiteam system identification (simple slope at -1 SD: B = .31, p = n.s.).
--- INSERT TABLE 2 AND FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE ---
DISCUSSION
by higher multiteam system identification. This relationship was not statistically significant, however, when an individual’s multiteam system identification was weaker.
We believe these findings provide important contributions to boundary spanning research. First, results of our study offer new perspectives on the role of an individual’s experience in relation to boundary spanning. Previously, an individual with extensive experience (i.e., an individual with many years of experience or a long track record of completed projects) has been argued to develop professionalism and competences (Ancona, 1990a; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981b; 1981a), which, consequently, enable this person to become a successful boundary spanner (e.g., Aldrich & Herker, 1977; Amedore & Knoff, 1993; Fleming & Waguespack, 2007). In other studies, however, such previous experience was unrelated to an individual’s boundary spanning. For instance, the number of previously completed research and development projects was unrelated to a leader’s engagement in boundary spanning (Hirst & Mann, 2004). Our results reconcile these mixed results and suggest that for boundary spanning the breadth of prior experience is most important, not the mere presence of total experience. In other words, an individual’s track record of previously completed projects might not associate with boundary spanning behavior, unless that individual shifted to different functional domains (e.g., logistic, operations, or personnel) between projects.
multiteam system benefits of boundary spanning or evaluates boundary spanning merely on the basis of personal costs and benefits associated with such behavior (cf., Choi, 2002; Marrone et al., 2007; Ramarajan et al., 2010). Specifically, we suggest that weak multiteam system identification may cause an individual to put an emphasis on the personal costs of boundary spanning and, consequently, causes him or her to limit such behavior (Macdonald & Williams, 1993). Moreover, we suggest that strong multiteam system identification may cause an individual to value the advantages of boundary spanning for the multiteam system, despite its personal costs, and therefore motivates him or her to engage in boundary spanning behavior (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).
Limitations and Future Research
Interpretation of this study’s results is bound to several limitations. First, the cross-sectional design of the study precludes causal conclusions. Given that our model is in line with previous theoretical considerations that cast an individual’s breadth of functional experience as an antecedent for boundary spanning behavior (e.g., Joshi et al., 2009), we have confidence in the proposed direction of linkages. Nevertheless we acknowledge the need for more evidence, based on longitudinal or experimental research, before causal inference is warranted. Furthermore, although our study includes a diverse set of participants from different nations and military organizations, we also recognize that our results might be restricted to the military context.
method variance is highly unlikely to account for the moderated relationship reported in this study. Monte Carlo simulations illustrate that it is virtually impossible for common method variance to spuriously create moderation effects (Evans, 1985). Taken together, we therefore believe common method variance does not represent a major biasing factor for our specific findings.
Besides addressing these limitations, future research may extend our model in several ways. First, scholars could consider antecedents of an individual’s breadth of functional
experience. Previous job-rotation studies show that high-performing individuals at the beginning of their careers are most likely to be rotated between positions and, consequently, to obtain broad experience (Campion et al., 1994). Such studies, however, typically do not distinguish between rotations within and between functional domains. Nevertheless, given the distinct relation between breadth of functional experience and boundary spanning reported in this study, disentangling antecedents of rotation between and within functional domains is worthwhile. Further research could, for instance, consider the association of an individual’s boundary spanning efficacy (i.e., an individual’s confidence in his or her capability to carry out boundary spanning tasks; Marrone et al., 2007) and the traits associated with his or her openness to new experiences (e.g., broad minded, curious, imaginative, cultured; Barrick & Mount, 1991) with the respective individual’s willingness to rotate between functional domains and chances of being nominated by superiors for such rotations.
Second, further research could investigate additional moderators that determine an
Noble & Jones, 2006) and, thus, provides potential additional moderators. Generating such insights may prove especially useful in contexts were boundary spanning behavior is required but the development of strong multiteam system identification is troubled, for example, in multiteam systems with strong goal conflicts, status differences, and a lack of support from authorities (cf., Goodwin, Essens, & Smith, In press; Ramarajan et al., 2010).
Third, breadth of functional experience can be explored as an antecedent of an individual’s position in (informal) networks that guide boundary spanning within multiteam systems. Although benefits of collective boundary spanning are widely recognized (e.g., Conway, 1995; DeChurch & Marks, 2006; Marks et al., 2005), utilizing the full potential of individuals who occupy key boundary spanning positions in the underlying informal network proof, nevertheless, to be a difficult task. Informal network are often in significant misalignment with more formal task structures (Kratzer et al., 2008) and key boundary spanners are frequently ineffectively distributed across groups (Tushman, 1977). Specifically, individuals within formal boundary spanning positions (e.g., senior managers) are often not central in informal networks and informal boundary spanners regularly go unnoticed (Allen et al., 2007). Within multiteam systems, such misalignment can result in process losses and hurt collective performance (Davison et al., 2010). Additional research could investigate breadth of functional experience as a
determinant why certain individuals occupy central informal boundary spanning positions, and, consequently, further enhance our understanding of breadth of functional experience in relation to boundary spanning.
on the influence of breadth of functional experience on other types of boundary spanning that might emerge within multiteam systems, such as ambassadorial activities (i.e., representing teams’ performance and needs to external actors) and information scouting (i.e., obtaining information from the external environment: Ancona & Caldwell, 1992b). Such research could provide valuable insights in how breadth of functional experience, in addition to its association with actual execution of task coordination, enables an individual to acquire information about the tasks that need to be coordinated between teams (i.e., as an antecedent of information scouting) and to obtain managerial support to execute such tasks (i.e., as an antecedent of ambassadorial activities; Ancona, 1990b; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992b).
Practical Implications
This study provides important managerial implications for the selection, development, and management of individuals who are required to engage in substantial boundary spanning. Based on our findings, we suggest, for example, that directors of multiteam system can improve coordination within their multiteam system by selecting individuals with broad functional experience for key boundary spanning positions (e.g., team leaders). Such selection enables multiteam system directors to ensure that the appropriate skills are allocated to positions that most heavily draw on.
However, in and of itself, such selection is insufficient to promote boundary spanning within multiteam systems. An individual with broad functional experience may not increase his or her boundary spanning behavior, unless he or she strongly identifies with the multiteam system. Therefore multiteam system directors also need to ensure that individual members strongly identify with the multiteam system, for instance, by stressing the distinctiveness and prestige of the multiteam system (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Mael & Ashforth, 1992), emphasizing teams’ mutual goals, and using terms such as ‘we’ instead of ‘us and them’ when addressing other teams (Gaertner et al., 2000).
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. 1977. Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of
Management Review, 2: 217-230.
Allen, J., James, A. D., & Gamlen, P. 2007. Formal versus informal knowledge networks in R&D: a case study using social network analysis. R&D Management, 37: 179-196. Amedore, G. H., & Knoff, H. M. 1993. Boundary spanning activities and the multidisciplinary
team process: Characteristics affecting school psychological consultation. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 4: 343-356.
Ancona, D. G. 1990a. Beyond boundary spanning: Managing external dependence in product development teams. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 1: 119-135. Ancona, D. G. 1990b. Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy
of Management Journal, 33: 334-365.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1988. Beyond task and maintenance: Defining external functions in groups. Group & Organization Management, 13: 468-494.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992a. Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3: 321-341.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992b. Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 634-665. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14: 20-39.
Bartel, C. A. 2001. Social comparisons in work: Effects of community outreach on members’ organizational identity and identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 379-413. Bettencourt, L. A., & Brown, S. W. 2003. Role stressors and customer-oriented
boundary-spanning behaviors in service organizations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 31: 394-408.
Bettencourt, L. A., Brown, S. W., & MacKenzie, S. B. 2005. Customer-oriented boundary-spanning behaviors: Test of a social exchange model of antecedents. Journal of
Retailing, 81: 141-157.
Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity: a primitive theory of social structure. New York: Free Press.
Bower, G. H., & Ernest, R. H. 1980. Theories of learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brown, R., & Wade, G. 1987. Superordinate goals and intergroup behaviour: The effect of role
ambiguity and status on intergroup attitudes and task performance. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 17: 131–142.
Bunderson, J. S. 2003. Team member functional background and involvement in management teams: Direct effects and the moderating role of power centralization. Academy of
Management Journal, 46: 458-474.
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2002. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of
Management Journal, 45: 875-893.
Cannella, A. A., Park, J. H., & Lee, H. U. 2008. Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: Examining the roles of team member colocation and environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 768–784.
Choi, J. N. 2002. External activities and team effectiveness: Review and theoretical development.
Small Group Research, 33: 181-208.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128-152.
Conway, S. 1995. Informal boundary-spanning communication in the innovation process: An empirical study. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 7: 327-342.
Cummings, J. N. 2004. Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50: 352-364.
Cycyota, C. S., & Harrison, D. A. 2006. What (not) to expect when surveying executives: A meta-analysis of top manager response rates and techniques over time. Organizational
Research Methods, 9: 133-160.
Davison, R. B., & Hollenbeck, J. R. In press. Boundary spanning in the domain of multi-team systems. In S. J. Zaccaro, M. A. Marks, & L. A. DeChurch (Eds.), Multi-team systems:
An organization form for dynamic and complex environments. Sussex, UK: Psychology
Press Ltd.
Davison, R. B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Barnes, C. M., & Sleesman, D. J. 2010. The role
of action and transition processes in large multiteam systems: Why size matters.
Working paper.
DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. 2006. Leadership in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied
Denison, D. R., Hart, S. L., & Kahn, J. A. 1996. From chimneys to cross-functional teams: Developing and validating a diagnostic model. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1005-1023.
Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. 2010. From an intrateam to an interteam perspective of effectiveness: The role of interdependence and boundary activities. Small Group
Research, 41: 143-174.
Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. 2003. Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 435-457.
Edmondson, A. C. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350-383.
Edmondson, A. C., & Nembhard, I. M. 2009. Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26: 123-138.
Ellemers, N., & Rink, F. 2005. Identity in work groups: The beneficial and detrimental consequences of multiple identities and group norms for collaboration and group
performance. In S. R. Thye & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Advances in Group Processes: vol. 22: 1-41. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Evans, M. G. 1985. A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in
moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 36: 305–323.
Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. M. 2007. Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18: 165-180.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. 1993. The
W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology: vol. 4: 1-26. Wiley: New York.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Bachman, B. A. 1996. Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The induction of a common ingroup identity. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 20: 271–290.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E. A. 2000. Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation. Group dynamics: Theory, research, and
practice, 4: 98-114.
Goodwin, G. F., Essens, P. J. M. D., & Smith, D. In press. Multi-team systems in the public sector. In S. J. Zaccaro, M. A. Marks, & L. A. DeChurch (Eds.), Multi-team systems: An
organization form for dynamic and complex environments. Sussex, UK: Psychology
Press Ltd.
Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 17: 109-122.
Grieve, P. G., & Hogg, M. A. 1999. Subjective uncertainty and intergroup discrimination in the minimal group situation. Personality and Social Psychology, 25: 926-940.
Hansen, M. T., Mors, M. L., & Lovas, B. 2005. Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 776-793.
Harinck, F., & Ellemers, N. 2006. Hide and seek: the effects of revealing one’s personal interests in intra- and intergroup negotiations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36: 791-813.
Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. 1986. Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the "contact hypothesis". In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in
intergroup encounters: 1-44. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. 2002. Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575-604.
Hirst, G., & Mann, L. 2004. A model of R&D leadership and team communication: the relationship with project performance. R & D Management, 34: 147-160.
Hoegl, M., & Weinkauf, K. 2005. Managing task interdependencies in multi-team projects: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 1287-1308.
Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., & Gemuenden, H. G. 2004. Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study.
Organization Science, 15: 38-55.
Hogg, M. A. 2000. Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European
Review of Social Psychology: vol. 11: 223-255. Chichester, UK: Wiley
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. 1993. Towards a single process uncertainty-reduction model of social motivation in groups. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation:
Social psychological perspectives: 28–47. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. 2000a. Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4: 143-156.
Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. 2000b. Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction. Personality
Joshi, A. 2006. The influence of organizational demography on the external networking behavior of teams. Academy of Management Review, 31: 583-595.
Joshi, A., Pandey, N., & Han, G. H. 2009. Bracketing team boundary spanning: an examination of task-based, team-level, and contextual antecedents. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 30: 731-759.
Keller, R. T. 2001. Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: Diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 547-555.
Kratzer, J., Gemünden, H. G., & Lettl, C. 2008. Balancing creativity and time efficiency in multi-team R&D projects: The alignment of formal and informal networks. R&D Management, 38: 538-549.
Levina, N., & Vaast, E. 2005. The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. Management
Information Systems Quarterly, 29: 335-363.
Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. 1977. Human information processing. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Macdonald, S., & Williams, C. 1993. Beyond the boundary: An information perspective on the role of the gatekeeper in the organization. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10: 417-428.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 103– 123.
Marks, M. A., DeChurch, L. A., Mathieu, J. E., Panzer, F. J., & Alonso, A. 2005. Teamwork in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 964-971.
Marrone, J. A. 2004. Cutting across team boundaries: Antecedents and implications of
individual boundary spanning behavior within consulting teams. College Park:
University of Maryland.
Marrone, J. A. 2010. Team boundary spanning: A multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. Journal of Management, 36: 911-940.
Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. 2007. A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 50: 1423-1440.
Mathieu, J. E., Marks, M. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. Multi-team systems. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and
organizational psychology: vol. 2, 289-313. London: Sage.
Nelson, R. E. 1989. The Strength of Strong Ties: Social Networks and Intergroup Conflict in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 377-401.
Noble, G., & Jones, R. 2006. The role of boundary-spanning managers in the establishment of public-private partnerships. Public Administration, 84: 891-917.
Pettigrew, T. F. 1979. The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5: 461-476.
Ramarajan, L., Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., & Euwema, M. 2010. From the outside in: The negative spillover effects of boundary spanners’ relations with members of other organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
Richter, A. W., West, M. A., Dick, R. van, & Dawson, J. F. 2006. Boundary spanners’ identification, intergroup contact, and effective intergroup relations. Academy of
Management Journal, 49: 1252-1269.
Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. 2001. Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 287-306. Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities.
Organization Science, 11: 448–469.
Smith, K. G., Carroll, S. J., & Ashford, S. J. 1995. Intra- and interorganizational cooperation: Toward a research agenda. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 7-23.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. 1999. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and
advanced multilevel modeling. London: SAGE.
Spector, P. E. 2006. Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend?.
Organizational Research Methods, 9: 221-232.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1985. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations: 7-24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Taylor, D. M., & Jaggi, V. 1974. Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in a south Indian context.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5: 162-171.
Tsai, W. 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of
Tushman, M. L. 1977. Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22: 587-605.
Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. 1980. External communication and project performance: An investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26: 1071-1085. Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. 1981a. Boundary spanning individuals: their role in
information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24: 289-305.
Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. 1981b. Characteristics and external orientations of boundary spanning individuals. Academy of Management Journal, 24: 83–98.
Ullrich, J., Wieseke, J., Christ, O., Schulze, M., & Dick, R. van. 2007. The identity-matching principle: Corporate and organizational identification in a franchising system. British
Journal of Management, 18: S29-S44.
Vora, D., & Kostova, T. 2007. A model of dual organizational identification in the context of the multinational enterprise. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 327–350.
Zaccaro, S. J., Marks, M. A., & DeChurch, L. A. In press. Multi-team systems: An introduction. In S. J. Zaccaro, M. A. Marks, & L. A. DeChurch (Eds.), Multi-team systems: An
organization form for dynamic and complex environments. Sussex, UK: Psychology
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
r Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1. Age .52 .50 2. Total experience 3.56 4.56 .16 3. Coordination tasks .19 .39 .12 -.01 4. Breadth of functional experience .20 .26 .04 .22† -.03 5. Multiteam system identification 4.55 1.43 -.02 .08 -.23 .01 6. Boundary spanning 7.50 4.63 .40** .37** .22† .40** .09 Note: N = 50 to 59 individuals nested in 21 teams due to missing values.
TABLE 2
Results of Multilevel Analysis of Boundary Spanning
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables entered B Std. Err. B Std. Err. B Std. Err. Age 3.00** 1.05 3.29** 1.16 2.91* 1.14 Total experience 1.47** .52 .78 1.14 .60 1.10 Coordination tasks 2.07 1.32 2.24 1.42 2.08 1.37 Multiteam system identification .48 .60 .25 .59 Breadth of functional experience 1.41* .61 1.40* .59 Breadth of functional experience * Multiteam system identification 1.09* .52 ∆χ2 (df) 32.262** (3) 55.426** (2) 4.763* (1) ∆R2 .22 .07 .04
Note: N = 50 individuals nested in 21 teams. † p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01
FIGURE 1
Interaction Breadth of Functional Experience and Multiteam System Identification
2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 7,5 8,0 8,5 9,0 9,5 10,0 low high
Breadth of Functional Experience
