Coupling of contributions in multi-specialized teams

Coupling of contributions in multi-specialized

teams

Developing a process model and identifying characteristics

2 Preface

This research and the whole Master Thesis process has been the most challenging and at the same time educational period of my Master studies. I experienced several ups and downs but I was supported throughout this process to not give up and keep on going when I had to face difficulties.

Firstly, I want to thank my supervisor Hille Bruns who was always available for answering questions, giving guidance and feedback. Even if I did not know how to proceed she would discuss the problem to help me decide what to do next. I also want to thank Janita Vos for the time and effort to assess my Master Thesis.

Secondly, I would like to thank Sandy Paas for contacting me with the people who I interviewed at the Province Friesland. Also special thanks to the people who were willing to make time for me in their busy schedules to conduct interviews and follow-up interviews.

Lastly, a big thanks to Jacob and my family and friends for listening to my struggles and providing me with advice and support to finish this Master Thesis process.

Groningen, February 2017

3 Abstract

This paper considers the coupling process in multi specialized teams and characteristics that have an influence on the strength of coupling during the coupling process. First, I find that the team leader and project planning both are important factors for couplings in teams to be tight. Second, the strength of coupling (loose vs. tight) differs in the phases between deadlines. Prior to a deadline couplings are tight and when the deadline is past the couplings are loose. Third, some characteristics are found to have an influence on the strength of coupling. A high frequency of interaction, many direct relationships, few differences between functions and a high degree of being informed about/understand team members tasks implies tight coupling, whereas a low frequency of interaction, indirect relationships, many differences between functions and a low degree of being informed about/understand team members tasks implies loose coupling. The identification of several characteristics that have an influence on the coupling process help shape this process in order for managers to recognize these characteristics and manage them so that they can positively contribute to the coupling process.

4 Table of contents 1. Introduction ... 5 2. Theoretical framework ... 7 2.1. Coupling ... 7 2.2. Coupling in teams ... 12 3. Methodology ... 13

3.1. Research approach and design ... 13

3.2. Research context ... 14

3.3. Data collection ... 16

3.4. Data analysis ... 17

4. Results ... 17

4.1. Coupled functions team A ... 17

4.2. Coupled functions team B-H ... 18

4.3. Coupling process team A ... 19

4.4. Coupling process team B-H ... 21

4.5. Characteristics coupling team A ... 22

4.6. Characteristics coupling team B-H ... 24

4.7. Process model ... 28

5. Discussion and conclusion ... 30

5.1. Implications ... 31

5.2. Research limitations and further research ... 31

5.3. Conclusions ... 32

References ... 33

Appendix I Interview protocol Dutch and English ... 37

5

1. Introduction

6

This is where the concept of coupling is of importance. Coupling is defined by Glassman (1973) and Weick (1982) as the interaction between two systems and the relationship between ‘A’ and

‘B’. This entails that a change in the design of one element often requires compensating changes in the designs of interrelated elements (Sanchez and Mahoney, 1996). Bruns (2014) adds that coupling entails the level of integration of contributions from multiple specialists into a coherent entity and that when working in a team coupling requires experts to identify and attend to details that will make contributions compatible.

But what is meant with making multiple elements compatible? The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following translation of ‘compatible’: mutually tolerant; capable of being admitted together, or of existing together in the same subject; accordant, consistent, congruous, agreeable. When linking this to a team I interpret this in two ways. First, the different contributions have to be in accordance and consistent so they can all be admitted integrally to ensure a good project result. Second, the different functional specialists have to be tolerant towards each other and in agreement about for example the content of each other’s tasks. In literature it is explained that the coupling process is about the ‘integration of contributions’ and ‘making contributions compatible’, but it is not mentioned how this process of coupling of contributions of different specialties is shaped in practice within a team and what characteristics influence this process. This lack of information about the process of coupling of contributions in the organizational/business science field leads to the following research question:

‘How is the process of coupling of contributions shaped in practice and what are characteristics that influence this process within a multi specialized team?

7

influence the coupling of contributions will enable the project leader to recognize these characteristics and manage them so that they can positively contribute to the coupling process. In order to be able to research the before mentioned question firstly a theoretical framework will be written in which in-depth information is given about coupling and what the coupling process looks like in practice. Following, the methodology section will provide information about the research approach and design, how the data is collected, the research context and how the data is analysed. Continuing, the results section contains all the results of the conducted interviews concerning coupling and the process of coupling. Also in this section a process model of the coupling process will be developed. In the discussion section the results are analysed, the research question will be answered and the implications, limitations and further research will be discussed.

2. Theoretical framework

Coupling is a concept that is used in many different specialties. This broad use of coupling makes it difficult to conceptualize and define coupling. To get an understanding of the concept of coupling table 1 provides an overview of how different specialties regard coupling. In this study when mentioning coupling only tight coupling is meant. In short this means that group members work in unison and perform tasks in an interconnected way (London & London, 1996). Loose coupling is in this case inefficient because loose coupling entails that group members have few variables in common which makes it not possible to study the interconnections, which are so important when studying coupling. In the next section loose and tight coupling will be discussed in more detail. Table 1 shows that overlap exists between how different specialties regard coupling. Based on the information in this table coupling has the following elements: knowledge and skill interdependencies, performance synchronization, integration of different people’s views and linkages between team members’ behaviours. Bruns (2014) adds that experts achieve coupling by directing their specialized activities so as to make emerging contributions compatible. So it is of importance that the contributions of specialists working in a team are integrated.

8

and macro level as coupling on the meso level is about relationships between organizational departments or sub-units (Weick, 1976; Sanchez & Mahoney, 1996) and coupling on the macro level refers to relationships between organizations (Beekun & Ginn, 1993; Rasche, 2012). As this study focuses on the micro level, examples of coupling on the micro level from different specialties are provided in table 1. This table shows that coupling is used in many different specialties and contexts such as sports, psychology and health care, but also shows that several similarities can be identified to form an overall understanding of coupling. By combining concepts from the studies in the table, I can explain that coupling on the micro level is about interdependencies between coactors (team members) who are linked in a team context and strive for performance synchronization.

9

Table 1. Examples of tight coupling on the micro level

Keidel (1985). Baseball, football and basketball: models for business

Sports; basketball Degree of reciprocal interdependence

On offense, the line leads the backfield by providing the blocking necessary for running and passing. Second, the flow of plays usually required to score could not be more sequential (p. 8)

Strang, Funke, Russell, Dukes, & Middendorf (2014). Physio-Behavioral coupling in a cooperative team task Psychology; Physio-behavioral coupling

Coactors exhibit spontaneous and unintended similarities in their physiological and behavioral response

Kinematic studies have documented spontaneous

coupling between coactors’ movements in cyclical tasks which required coacting teammates to perform similar actions like swinging hand-held pendulums, tandem walking, swaying in adjacent rocking chairs and standing upright while engaged in mutual conversation (p. 145)

London and London (1996). Tight coupling in high performance teams

High performing teams

Performance synchronization; the degree to which members’ behaviours are interlinked during practice and performance

Team members categorize behaviour and performance by others that matches their expectations. The members adjust their performance almost automatically, if all goes smoothly the behaviour and associated performance is reinforced (p. 5)

Faraj and Xiao (2006). Coordination in fast response organizations

Health care; emergency room

Knowledge and skill interdependencies

There are times when the surgeon wants to perform an operation, and the anaesthesiologist doesn’t want to compromise the patient’s health. Then the attending surgeon has to figure out what they are going to do at all, and sometimes they are at odd (p. 1165)

Lom (2016). Changing rules, changing practices: the direct and indirect effects of tight coupling in figure skating

Changing rules in the field of figure skating

The link between organizational rules and practices

As a result of the changes in judging officials’ rules, the skating world has modified its training and testing process to

10

Rasche (2012) identifies four characteristics of relationships between elements that influence the strength of coupling: frequency of interaction, (in) direct relationships, the degree of causal indeterminacy (people (dis)agree about how others function or should function) and the (non)existence of immediate effects (they cause a decline in information exchange because of delayed responses (Luke et al., 1989)). A high frequency of interaction, direct relationships, a low degree of causal indeterminacy (elements agree) and the existence of immediate effects (information exchange is sufficient, no delayed responses) imply tight coupling, whereas a low frequency of interaction, indirect relationships, a high degree of causal indeterminacy and the non-existence of immediate effects imply loose coupling.

11

Characteristic (Rasche, 2012)

Article where example is retrieved from Example characteristic on micro level

Frequency of interaction Faraj and Xiao (2006). Coordination in fast-response organizations

You can go to the operating room five minutes after you meet somebody and

you don’t know what kind of skill they have. You don’t know if they have

any ability at all to stop bleeding, or can handle a knife or a needle (p. 1161) Direct relationships Willems (2016). Building shared mental

models of organizational effectiveness in leadership teams through team member exchange quality

Team member exchange (TMX) expresses the extent that team members consider themselves supportive in a reciprocal setting. High TMX arises when team members spontaneously help teammates fulfill their tasks,

communicate openly, and give constructive feedback. If members assist

one another, they likely perceive positive conditions for good decision making, which should relate to team effectiveness (p. 572)

Degree of causal indeterminacy

Pearsall and Venkataramani (2015).

Overcoming asymmetric goals in teams: The roles of team learning orientation and team identification

One innovation team member may have a strong goal regarding the strategic purpose behind the ideas generated that conflicts with another team member, and whose own strong goal lies in the idea implementation stage. In such a situation, although there are divergent goals, there is really no conflict; both members can meet their goals by conceding their unimportant ones (p. 736) Degree of immediate effects Navimipour and Charband (2016).

Knowledge sharing mechanisms and techniques in teams: Literature review, classification and current trends

Teams have members with complementary skills (specialties) and generate synergy through a coordinated effort. Timely information sharing in teams

is very important because it provides a link between the different team

members which is important to generate synergy (p. 731)

12 2.2. Coupling in teams

Team members are highly dependent on each other’s competence (Saavedra, Earley & Van Dyne, 1993). This interdependence is illustrated by several authors as the coupling of contributions (Weick, 1976; Orton & Weick 1990; Sanchez and Mahoney, 1996; Rasche, 2012). In her study Bruns (2014) defines the coupling of contributions as ‘the level of integration of contributions from multiple specialists into a coherent entity’ (p. 10). Miller (1978) further explains about coupled elements that ‘the state of each element is constrained by, conditioned by or dependent on the state of other elements’ (p. 16). This entails that a change in the design of one element often requires compensating changes in the designs of interrelated elements (Sanchez and Mahoney, 1996). With the integration of contributions, conflicting views of team members can affect the coupling of contributions. So it is necessary that these conflicting views are made compatible. Bruns (2012) provides a solution when she mentions when working in a team, coupling requires experts to identify and attend to details that will make the different views and contributions compatible, and to carry out specialized activities accordingly. Adding to what is mentioned about making conflicting views compatible, Pearsall and Venkatarmani (2015) state that although team members share common objectives, they often have conflicting individual functional goals that shape the way they contribute to the team. For example they also work on other projects. A cause of these conflicting views can be that team members often have an insufficient understanding of each other’s goals and tasks and it is often unclear whether, and how, their teammates’ goals may conflict with their own goals (Cronin & Weingart, 2007). As is suggested by Pearsal & Venkatarmani (2015) these conflicting views can be best overcome by developing high levels of team identification among members. Team members need to feel that they belong with the team.

13

flow of knowledge and using multiple viewpoints to solve a problem is in accordance with tight coupling as tight coupling suggests a high level of collaboration (having multiple viewpoints) and a high reliance on others (knowledge transfer). When work tasks entail multiple team membership, it is important to have an understanding of how teams cut across tasks and how they operate within a context of other organizational teams (Bruns, 2014).

Coupling is a broad concept which can be applied in many different specialties. However, in the field of organizational business coupling is about integrating contributions and overcoming conflicting views of different functional specialists working in a team. Different characteristics can have an influence on the degree of coupling (loose vs. tight) e.g., frequency of interaction, direct relationships or different individual functional goals of team members. These characteristics as well as the process of coupling are understudied elements of coupling so I hope to find new and interesting information about these elements that can add to existing literature. In the next section information is given about how this study is executed by providing detailed information about the research approach and design, research context, data collection and data analysis.

3. Methodology

14

Figure 1. The empirical cycle (de Groot, 1969; Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007 & Blumberg, Cooper and Schindler, 2011)

3.2. Research context

I conducted the interviews with employees of one of the Northern Provinces of The Netherlands; Province Friesland. This organization strives to create added value for the whole province and its citizens. The reason why I chose this organization to use for this study is because the organization is recently undergoing a large structural reorganization. This entails the changing of different departments/functions into every employee having their own specialty to be used for different teams. So the organization is changing from a functional organizational structure to a team oriented organizational structure. Reorganization is currently happening so the organization makes use of many teams that I could research.

15

Because I had the goal to retrieve information from many different teams, to contrast my findings with a variety of other teams settings, I decided to use one team (team A) as the primary team which consists of five people. I interviewed another seven people who belonged to different teams to compare team A to. Table 3 provides a short overview of the subjects of the remaining seven team projects. In table 4 an overview is given of details concerning all conducted interviews.

Team B Team C Team D Team E Team F Team G Team H Subject Organize educational energy challenges Overseeing solar energy initiatives Creating a cultural policy Creating data classification system Hiring new trainees External trainee placement Overseeing rebuilding ice skating stadium

Table 3. Team subjects team B-H

Interviewee Function Years in the organization

Duration of interview Team

R 1 Communication specialist

3 29:26 + 25:50 follow up A

R 2 Overall project leader 15 46:38 + 48.11 follow up A

16

R 1 Project leader 3 31:34 + 20.53 follow up G R 1 Quality control

specialist

3 25:57 H

Table 4. Overview of interview details R = Respondent

3.3.Data collection

17

is generated. The way information is retrieved should provide substantial reasons to believe that the research results are accurate.

3.4. Data analysis

The interviews were conducted in Dutch and transcribed in English to provide for easier and quicker coding. The different codes were retrieved from important theory about the coupling process and coupling in teams as well as from the transcripts. Three main codes were used: ‘coupled functions’ coupling process’ and ‘characteristics that influence coupling’. The first code is used to indicate that couplings exists within the teams. The second code is used to retrieve information about the coupling process. The last code is used to indicate what elements have an influence on the strength of coupling (loose vs. tight) and consists of four underlying codes. The first two codes are retrieved from Rasche’s (2012) theory about characteristics of relationships between elements that influence the strength of coupling: ‘frequency of interaction’ and ‘direct relationships’. The remaining two codes are retrieved from the interview transcripts: ‘differences between functions’ and ‘degree of being informed about/understand team members’ tasks’. An overview of the codes used in this study and explanations of the codes as well as corresponding quotes is added in appendix II.

4. Results

In this section the results of the conducted interviews at the Provence Friesland will be described. I first start describing findings that show that different functions are indeed coupled within the teams. Continuing, results about the process of coupling of contributions will be described in the different teams. Furthermore, the different characteristics of coupling that are found in the teams will be elaborated on. This section will end with a short summary with the most important results and comparisons which will be used to form a process model of coupling of contributions and characteristics that influence the degree of coupling. To ensure the confidentiality of the respondents I only used the team and respondent number when quoting.

4.1. Coupled functions team A

18

coupling and the process of coupling of contributions. This is in contrast to loose coupling which would indicate an infrequent, unimportant and slow attachment between elements

(Weick, 1976; Burke 2014) and these elements require little information sharing and collaboration among team members (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). This indicates that that no strong couplings will be available to study. To indicate that the different functions in team A are coupled together the following was mentioned by the team leader of team A:

The different inputs are very dependent on each other, inputs from ICT (who takes care of a working system with all needed options available), the coordinator (who is responsible for the content of the system and the customer advisors), the inventory/research specialist (responsible for gathering information for the knowledge database that is used by the customer advisors) and the communication specialist (who communicates all necessary information about the status of the project towards the rest of the organization). The deadline for going live with the system was 3 October. This meant that the coordinator had to hire qualified customer advisors in time for this deadline. These customer advisors had to be trained properly to be able to use the new system which meant that ICT had to finish the system and the knowledge database several weeks prior to the deadline. This in turn meant that the inventory/research specialist had to have a complete knowledge database in time for the training of the customer advisors. The communication specialist was involved with some of these steps, for example she was responsible for communicating the customer advisor vacancies internally and providing interested employees with information (Team A, R2).

This statement shows that the different functions in this team are tightly coupled because it is mentioned that many dependencies exist between the different functions. This is in accordance with Orton and Weick (2001) who mention that elements in organizations are tightly coupled when they rely on other parts of the organization. The previous mentioned by the team leader of team A also shows that a change (e.g., not having a complete knowledge database) in one function has consequences for all other functions which matches Sanchez and Mahoney (1996) mentioning, about coupling of contributions, that a change in the design of one element often requires compensating changes in the designs of interrelated elements. In this example it comes down to this first step in team A of having a complete knowledge database, which is the base for all other tasks the different functions have.

4.2. Coupled functions team B-H

19

Prior to the first deadline the different team members had to work closely together. The subsidy specialist had to have the subsidy agreement ready before I could set a date for people to come to the building to enroll. When this agreement was approved I could set a date and in his turn the supporting specialist could arrange that at that day all equipment necessary for setting up a desk at the front office and was available to enroll people. After I set the date the communication specialist could make an announcement on social media and in the local newspapers. Further, when no important deadlines were in sight, everyone works separately (Team G, R1).

This shows a comparable situation with team A. In both examples a ‘domino-effect’ can be identified. In this example the ‘first stone’ of the ‘domino-effect’ is the subsidy specialist having the subsidy agreement ready. Without this step the other tasks could not have been executed.

4.3. Coupling process team A

Coupling can be an easy concept to understand when we take a simple example about putting the engine of a car together. This engine exists of all kinds of components or parts in which the coupling process is that these parts need to be put together in a certain order and in a certain way to establish a working engine, which is the result of the process. This is easy to understand. However, when we replace the engine with a team, the coupling process becomes more complex. This is because the components of a team are not lifeless parts of an engine, but they are people, each having their own function or role, working methods, views or ideas about the project.

Summarizing what is mentioned in the literature section about the coupling process we see that the coupling process is about group members performing tasks in an interconnected way by integrating different contributions from multiple specialists and making these contributions compatible (contributions are in accordance and consistent so they can all be admitted integrally to ensure a good project result). To illustrate how this process is shaped in practice, the team leader explains:

The different functions can work separately of each other, but at the important deadlines they have to work together and are dependent on each other to continue with their tasks. Because of these interdependencies everyone has to know of each other when, what tasks are needed. And that is why our team planning is so important because in this planning not only deadlines are described or overall tasks, but also when someone needs certain tasks of someone else in order to continue with their own tasks (Team A, R2).

20

in this planning. In this way the different functions have insights in what others need from them and what they need from others so every function can anticipate what they have to undertake to be in compliance with each other. Second, the team leader explains that the different functions have to work more closely together when deadlines are coming up. This shows a difference in the degree of coupling throughout the project. The following provides more insight in this difference in the degree of coupling:

The ICT specialist, coordinator and me have had some serious discussions. […] When these serious conversations had to be held, I was the one to keep the peace and help them find a solution that would fit for both of them. Several weeks before we had to go live with the new system we feared that this was not going to happen. In these weeks I put much extra effort in the project to make the deadline. I also directed the team members more closely to make them more aware of the importance that they worked extra hard to make the deadline (Team A, R2). In my experience a project never goes the way it was planned. I think it is normal that things go different than was expected which mainly has to do that different functions are dependent on each other and need each other which causes delays in the project. So in a project very few things go like they are planned. Of course this has a great influence on deadlines that have to be made, this can be tricky (Team A, R5).

The first thing that can be noticed is that the first quote shows the importance of the project leader during the coupling process to guide the functions and make difficult decisions to keep everyone in agreement. This is in accordance with Bruns (2014) who mentioned that coupling requires experts to identify and attend to details that will make the different views and contributions in a team compatible. Second, about the degree of coupling, the supporting specialist explains that making deadlines can be a difficult thing to manage because no project goes the way it was planned and projects always experience delays. These quotes show that prior to an important deadline the team members are directed more closely and everyone has to work more closely together. This is because when a deadline is coming up, the functions feel more pressure. Also, it can cause delays when functions work more closely together and team members need each other to perform tasks. This indicates that prior to deadlines tight coupling occurs because according to Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, and Smith (1999) tight coupling is about events/tasks that require a high level of collaboration because these tasks are challenging which implies that a high level of control and clarity of tasks is needed.

21

When a deadline is coming up […] we work and consult more frequently. […] Normally we meet once a week, but when a deadline comes up often a few important things have to be taken care of so we will meet more frequent during the last weeks prior to the deadline. This is to make sure everyone is informed of the progress and determine what still needs to done to make the deadline (Team A, R3). The coordinator stresses the importance of working together to make a deadline and meeting more frequent prior to a deadline in contrast to meeting only once a week when no deadline is coming up. This implies that tight coupling occurs when deadlines are coming up and more loose coupling occurs when this deadline is past and every function continues with their own tasks. To create a clear image of the course of the project and about the deadlines during the project, the following was described by the team leader:

We have three important deadlines. The first deadline was about gathering all information and other resources necessary for the information system so people could use the system. The first deadline meant that the information system had to work and from that point could be used. Now we are in phase 2/3, which means that the information system needs to be developed more (Team A, R2).

4.4. Coupling process team B-H

When looking again at the quote from R1 Team G (external trainee placement), it shows that this team is in accordance with team A concerning the differences in the strength of coupling throughout the project. For clarification the quote is again illustrated below:

Prior to the first deadline the different team members had to work closely together. The subsidy specialist had to have the subsidy agreement ready before I could set a date for people to come to the building to enroll. When this agreement was approved I could set a date and in his turn the supporting specialist could arrange that at that day all equipment necessary for setting up a desk at the front office and was available to enroll people. After I set the date the communication specialist could make an announcement on social media and in the local newspapers. Further, when no important deadlines were in sight, everyone works separately (Team G, R1).

22

The most important deadlines were the enrollment day, informing the enrolled people if they were chosen or not to follow a traineeship and employers choosing trainees that would fit their organization (Team G, R1).

This shows that the project consists of three important deadlines. This is the same amount of deadlines as in team A during the whole project.

To illustrate the importance of the planning and the team leader, which is also in accordance with team A, an example of team F is given. The project of this team was about hiring new trainees for the Province Friesland. The assistant team leader of team F mentioned :

Our project leader is very important because he checks our planning/action list, so who has to do what, when and he also makes sure this list is being lived up to by every team member. We have our space in the ‘cloud’ on which every team member can put their work and every team member has access to this so when they need certain documents or information they can access it easily. The priority for me is to make sure my job is done right. However, if someone else gets stuck, the whole project planning is affected by this. I do not need to know what another team member exactly is doing, but I need to know that everyone makes progress and sticks to the deadlines because than the project is succeeding (Team F, R1).

This quote emphasizes that the team leader is important for the all team members to follow the planning. So the team leader ensures that every team member knows what to do and knows what actions to undertake to achieve this and he makes sure that every team member executes these actions. These actions can imply that someone needs for example information of another team member. By knowing these dependencies between team members everyone in the team can anticipate what they have to undertake to be consistent for ensuring good team results.

4.5. Characteristics coupling team A

The following characteristics have been found to have an influence on the degree/strength of coupling. First we discuss two characteristics that are retrieved from literature and are based on research done by Rasche (2012): ‘frequency of interaction’ and ‘direct relationships’. The importance of a high presence of these characteristics is also found in this study. Starting with ‘frequency of interaction’ the following was mentioned by the communication specialist:

23

the Mondays, which is less efficient and I do not always get a clear response (Team A, R1).

This information indicates the importance of interacting frequent with team members to make sure that contributions are coherent. She explains that the other function often is not present during the meetings. This means that they are less informed about the dependencies, which can change every week, that have an influence on their work. This causes this function to not be able to anticipate on what other team members need from them or what they need from other team members. This can cause their contributions to be less consistent.

Continuing with the following characteristic ‘direct relationships’ it is shown that it is important to have direct contact within a team instead of indirect contact.

Every Monday we have a project team meeting. I really like it that we are all personally together once a week because almost everyone also has other projects to deal with. In this way every team member stays focused on our project. […] we also work at the same place on Monday so communication is more efficient (Team A, R1).

This quote emphasizes the importance of direct relationships in a team (meetings and working together in the same place) linked to team members staying focused on this project. So this direct way of working together ensures that all team members agree that this project is important which is a good first step to making contributions compatible, for which it is needed that team members agree with each other.

The following characteristic that can influence the degree of coupling is retrieved from interviews with the coordinator and ICT specialist from team A. The characteristic is ‘differences between functions’, which is explained by the coordinator:

ICT speaks a different language than the other functions. For example for answering customers we need information of employees such as their name, function and telephone number. We asked ICT to provide the system with this information. What ICT did is connecting the information that is available in our telephone center to the KCC system. However this center only listed surnames of employees and their initials. You can image that when I have to look for Johan de Jong that in the telephone center a lot of J. de Jong names are available because this is a common name. This makes it impossible to track down the right person. ICT did not take into account that we could not use this information, they did not look beyond what they were asked to do. So it is very important to communicate very specific and detailed to ICT what we need (Team A, R3).

24

different functions compatible. Because the coordinator has to explain in detail what he needs from ICT it seems that ICT does not understand what the coordinator needs. So because of this difference in language between these two functions it is more difficult to adjust to each other because it takes much more effort to understand each other. This difference in language is also acknowledged by the ICT function:

There are people within the project who know little about ICT. For me this makes it difficult to determine what we need and to translate this to others because their view and knowledge of ICT is very different than mine. When it comes to working together it is therefore very important to check if everyone understands what I mean and what the consequences are of what I mean. We think we speak the same language but in reality this is not the case (Team A, R4).

Continuing, the last characteristic is retrieved from an interview with the coordinator of team A: ‘degree of being informed about/understand team members’ tasks. The coordinator of team A has the following opinion:

When ICT involved me earlier in their problems concerning the system, I would have been more calm because then I know that they acknowledge that they are experiencing problems and that they are undertaking actions to solve the problems. […] What is of influence on keeping each other informed is how long people have been working together. It is difficult to admit that something is not going the way you want it do go to people you do not know that long. As you work longer with people you know what you can expect of them, you know to some extent how they are going to react and you feel more comfortable. In our team we are solving problems together instead of pointing the finger to someone (Team A, R3).

The coordinator mentions that when he had been informed about what ICT was doing, that they were dealing with a problem, he would have had more understanding for them and their tasks would have been more interconnected because he could have helped ICT with solving their problem. This need for clarification of tasks among team members has an influence on the degree of coupling and is in accordance with Kozlowski, Gully, Nason and Smith (1999) who mention that clarity of tasks is needed when couplings are tight. So when tasks are less clear among team members, this implies a more loose coupling.

4.6. Characteristics coupling team B-H

25

I was informed too late by the subsidiary specialist about a complaint a trainee made. I had to confront him and told him that he had to communicate more with me when important problems were reported so I could act accordingly […] This complaint was made during a phase in our project in which we did not collaborate very much, there were no important deadlines coming up so we communicated less to each other than prior to an important deadline. So this shows that it is important to communicate constantly and make agreements about how we work together (Team G, R1).

In the team we frequently met to keep each other informed about important issues. For example, I frequently worked together with the communication specialist because we had different knowledge which had to be put together. For example when placing an announcement on social media I knew the content and wrote the text and she provided a nice lay-out. So it is about providing your specialist knowledge, knowing that the other also has specialist knowledge and knowing that this specific knowledge will complement my knowledge, and working together to create an end product, in this case the announcement on social media (Team G, R1). The first quote is a good example of a situation in which too little interaction was present between two team members which caused miscommunication. This miscommunication can be caused by loose couplings being present, while actually more tight couplings were necessary to keep the team leader informed. In contrast to this, the second quote illustrates a situation in which many interaction was present. This caused, in this case, two functions to closely work together and make their contributions consistent.

Moving on to the next characteristic ‘direct relationships’ the assistant team leader of team D, who was partly responsible for creating a cultural policy, and the team leader of team E, who was responsible for setting up a data classification system, experienced the following:

In the beginning of the project I mostly focused on frequently emailing team members about the deadlines. Now that I have worked longer in this project I learned that it works better to talk to people face to face and empathize with them and ask what they need to make a deadline. So I think direct personal contact is a better way to make sure people get their tasks done (Team D, R1).

We prefer calling or face-to-face communication. It depends on what kind of agreements we make. If we want to make binding agreements we do this via email because then the agreements are written down and official. What I notice is that people too often use email to communicate. I think is a problem because there is a risk that people understand each other the wrong way. Meeting frequently personally is more dynamic, constructive and it saves time because when things are not clear they can be explained right away (Team E, R1).

26

In this way the assistant team leader of team D used personal contact to understand what a team member needs and in this way making the joint contributions consistent. The team leader of team E emphasizes the importance of direct contact by linking this to team members needing to understand each other in order to make contributions consistent. The importance of the presence of the two before mentioned characteristics in teamwork is in accordance with what was mentioned by respondents of team A.

The last two characteristics to be discussed in this section are ‘differences between functions’ and ‘degree of being informed about/understand team members’. These two characteristics are retrieved from interviews with team G. About these two characteristics that influence the degree of coupling, the team leader of team G has the following opinions:

The juridical function focuses on their tasks on do not look beyond their tasks. In comparison the communication function wants to make sure that information is understandable towards everyone. For example when a the juridical functions sends out a letter they do not take into account that the organization also should be able to understand that letter. This is where communication comes in and tries to rewrite the letter by using a more understandable language (Team G, R1).

It was important that every team member was not only doing their own task independently but also kept the team informed so everyone knew what was happening and could take actions when certain issues also involved them (Team G, R1).

27

Example team A Example team B-H Coupling process elements

- Importance of project planning

The project planning is very important in the coupling process because the interdependencies of all functions are described in this planning

By knowing the dependencies between team members everyone in the team can anticipate what they have to undertake to be consistent for ensuring good team results

- Importance of team leader

The team leader guids functions and makes difficult decisions to keep everyone in agreement

The team leader ensures every team member knows what to do and knows what actions to undertake to achieve this

- Difference in couplings throughout phases in between deadlines

Prior to an important deadline the team members are directed more closely and everyone has to work more closely together

Prior to a deadline the team members had to work closely together and when no important deadlines were up, every team member works mostly separate

Characteristics that influence coupling

- Frequency of interaction Interacting frequent with team members is important to make sure that contributions are coherent

When many interaction was present, this caused two functions to closely work together and make their contributions consistent

- Direct relationships A direct way of working together ensures that all team members agree that this project is important which is a good first step to making contributions compatible

The assistant team leader used personal contact to understand what a team member needs and in this way making the joint contributions consistent

- Differences between functions

Because the coordinator has to explain in detail what he needs from ICT it seems that ICT does not understand what the coordinator needs. So because of this difference in language between these two functions it is more difficult to adjust to each other

Institutionalizing this ‘understandable language’ can be a means to understand each other’s work as to making the different tasks of functions more compatible

- Being informed about/understand team member’s tasks

When the coordinator had been informed about what the other function was struggling with, he would have had more understanding for them and their tasks would have

28

been more interconnected because he could have helped the function with solving their problem

Table 5. Summary of results

In table 5, each element of the coupling process and every characteristic as mentioned in the results sections is compared between teams. As was already mentioned in the previous sections, and as also can be seen in this table, the results between the different teams are very similar. The different teams are in agreement about the influence of the different described elements on the coupling process. The teams also acknowledge the four different characteristics having an influence on the degree of coupling. Therefore, I will use these elements and characteristics to form a process model in the next section.

4.7. Process model

29

30

5. Discussion and conclusion

Literature explains about the coupling process that it is about the interaction between two systems (Glassman, 1973) and the relationship between ‘A’ en ‘B’ (Weick, 1982). The coupling process is about making contributions compatible and integrating contributions (Bruns, 2014). However, it is not clear how this integration process and making contributions compatible is shaped in practice and which characteristics influence coupling. This study had the aim to research how the process of coupling of contributions is shaped in multi-specialized teams and which characteristics have an influence on the degree of coupling. This study aimed to construct a process model to contribute to literature and providing a practical example. To accomplish this, the following research question was formulated:

‘How is the process of coupling of contributions shaped in practice and what are characteristics that influence this process within a multi specialized team?

To answer the first part of the research question the process model in figure 2 is constructed. This shows the coupling of contributions in a team throughout the timeline of a project. In this figure phases of loose and tight coupling are alternated prior to and after three deadlines. Prior to deadlines more tight couplings are existent. So this differs from theory which explains that couplings are either loose or tight (Glassman, 1973; Orton & Weick, 1990). In the process model in figure 2 both loose and tight couplings are present during one process. The team leader as well as the planning are very important to ensure tight coupling in this process. These elements are also important to make sure that people who work in multiple teams at the same time (multiple team membership, (O’leary, 2011)) stay focused on their tasks within one team. As Bruns (2014) mentioned it is important to have an understanding of how team members cut across tasks and how they operate when work tasks entail multiple team membership.

31 5.1. Implications

Theoretical implications of this study are firstly that this research contributes to research of Rasche (2012) by providing practical examples on the micro level of his identified characteristics. This micro level view, coupling between elements in a team, is in contrast to his macro level views about multi-stakeholder initiatives. I found that two of his characteristics also have an influence on the strength of coupling on the micro level.

Secondly, next to two characteristics identified by Rasche (2012) that influence the strength of coupling, I found two more characteristics that can influence the strength of coupling: differences between functions and people being informed about/understand other team members’ tasks. These characteristics provide more insights about how coupling can be measured, not only on the loose-tight continuum (Glassman, 1973; Orton & Weick, 1990), but also in other ways.

Lastly, I provided a start for researching how the process of making contributions compatible is shaped in practice. I found that the team leader as well as project planning have a great influence on this process because these two factors make team members constantly aware of all the dependencies within the team. Furthermore, I found that within one process both loose and tight coupling can take place.

Practical implications of this study are that I created a more clear picture about the complexity of the coupling process in teams. When regarding to coupling this is often seen as a simple process that is about ‘the relationship between A and B’ or about ‘merging different elements’ or ‘making contributions compatible’. This may seem a simple process for example when different tangible parts of an engine have to be put together, this should be done in a specific way and order. However, when the engine is replaced with a team and the coupled elements are people with their own contributions, way of working, feelings, ideas etc., the coupling process becomes more complex. So having provided more insights in this process will make understanding how this process is shaped less difficult and complex for managers to understand.

5.2. Research limitations and further research

32

about detailed information which the interviewees did not always understand. This caused me to conduct several follow-up interviews.

Secondly, interviewing several trainees was of influence on people understanding the questions I asked. These trainees all had only been working 1-2 years in the organization which caused them to have less experience than for example the team leader of team A, and having a hard time with understanding some of the questions I asked.

Thirdly, I interviewed one (almost) complete team and seven additional people from seven different teams in order to have enough information for making comparisons between divers teams. These additional people were all team leader or assistant team leader. So my recommendation for further researching the coupling of contributions in multi-specialized teams will be interviewing several teams where all teams consist of a team leader and several different functions, to be able to make comparisons between more functions. It is also recommended that the team members have already been working in the organization for several years in order for them to be able to base their information and answers on experience, as this concept is difficult to understand.

5.3. Conclusions

33

References

Anthony, E. L., Green, S. G., & McComb, S. A. (2014). Crossing functions above the cross- functional project team: The value of lateral coordination among functional

department heads. Journal Of Engineering & Technology Management, 31, 141-158. Aken, van J. E., Berends, H., Bij, van der H. (2012). Problem solving in organizations – A

methodological handbook for business and management students.

Babb, S., & Chorev, N. (2016). International organizations: Loose and tight coupling in the development regime. Studies In Comparative International Development, 51(1), 81-102.

Banbury, C.M., & Mitchell, W. (1995) The effect of introducing important incremental innovations on market share and business survival. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 161–82.

Beekun, R. L., & Ginn, G. O. (1993). Business strategy and interorganizational linkages within the acute care hospital industry: An expansion of the Miles and Snow Typology. Human Relations, 46(11), 1291-1318.

Beekun, R. I., & Glick, W. H. (2001). Organization structure from a loose coupling perspective: A multidimensional approach. Decision sciences, 32(2), 227-250.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14.

Bruns, H. C. (2014). Theory of coordination process. Working paper, VU-University. Burke, W. W. (2014). Changing loosely coupled systems. Journal of Applied Behavior

Science, 50(4), 423–444.

Chaney, P., & Devinney, T. (1992) New product innovations and stock price performance.

Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 19, 677–95.

Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32, 761–774. Faraj, S. and Xiao, Y. (2006). Coordination in fast-response organizations. Management

Science, 52(8), 1155-1169.

Fay, D., Shipton, H., West, M. A., & Patterson, M. (2015). Teamwork and organizational innovation: The moderating role of the HRM context. Creativity & Innovation

34

Gamoran, A., & Dreeben, R. (1986). Coupling and Control in Educational Organizations.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(4), 612-632.

Glassman, R. B. (1973). Persistence and loose coupling in living systems. Behavioral Science, 18(2), 83-89.

Keidel, R. W. (1985). Baseball, football, and basketball: Models for business. Organizational

Dynamics, 12(3), 5-18.

Kozlowski, S.W.J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work and performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development(SIOP Frontiers Series). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ledford, G.E., Lawler, E.E. & Mohrrnan, S.A. (1988). The quality circle and its variations. Pp. 255-294 in J.P. Campbell, R.J. Campbell & Associates (Eds.), Productivity in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lom, S. E. (2016). Changing rules, changing practices: The direct and indirect effects of tight coupling in figure skating. Organization Science, 27(1), 36–52.

London, M., & London, M. M. (1996). Tight coupling in high performing teams. Human

Resource Management Review, 6(1), 1-24.

Luke, R. D., Begun, J. W., & Pointer, D. D. (1989). Quasi firms: Strategic interorganizational forms in the health care industry. Academy of Management Review, 14, 9-19.

Milgrom, P. R., & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, organization, and management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Miller, J. G. 1978. Living systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mohrman, S.A. and Quam, K. (2000) Consulting to team-based organizations: An

organizational design and learning approach. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice

and Research, 52, 20–35.

35

Navimipour, N. J., & Charband, Y. (2016). Knowledge sharing mechanisms and techniques in project teams: Literature review, classification and current trends. Computers in

human behaviour, 62, 730-742.

O'Leary, M.B., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams.

Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 461-478.

Orton, J.D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems - a reconceptualization.

Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203-223.

Pearsall, M. J., & Venkataramani, V. (2015). Overcoming asymmetric goals in teams: The roles of team learning orientation and team identification. Journal Of Applied

Psychology, 100(3), 735-748.

Rasche, A. (2012). Global policies and local practice. Loose and tight couplings inmulti-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(4), 679-708.

Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61–72.

Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management

Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue), 63-76.

Stein, B.A. & Kanter, R.M. (1980). Building the parallel organization: Creating mechanisms for permanent quality of work life. Journal of Applied Behavioral Scienc, 16(37) l-386.

Strang, A. J., Funke, G. J., Russell, S. M., Dukes, A. W., & Middendorf, M. S. (2014). Physio-Behavioral coupling in a cooperative team task: Contributors and relations.

Journal Of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception & Performance, 40(1),

145-158.

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.

36

Weick, K. E. (1982). Management of organizational change among loosely coupled systems. In P. Goodman and Associates (Ed.), Change in organizations: New perspectives on theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 375-408.

37

Appendix I Interview protocol Dutch and English

Wat is uw huidige functie, op welke afdeling / wat zijn uw bezigheden?

Wat is een belangrijk project waar u mee bezig bent (geweest) in dit team? Kunt u dit project kort toelichten?

- Wat is uw taak / rol in het project?

- Hoeveel teamgenoten werken er mee aan dit project en wat is hun functie? - Zijn er tijdens het project bepaalde deadlines wanneer u (en anderen) een taak af

moeten hebben? Hoe vaak?

- Als iemand een deadline niet haalt, wat voor effect heeft dit op het uitvoeren van uw taak?

- Hoe lang loopt het project al en wanneer wordt het afgerond?

Wat heeft u nodig van een teamgenoot met een andere functie om uw werk te kunnen doen? - Wat past u aan in uw werk zodat u optimaal inspeelt op wat u nodig heeft van een

ander?

- Wat zijn een paar voorbeelden hiervan? (wanneer past u zich veel aan en wanneer minder?)

- Wat zijn elementen die dit beïnvloeden?

- Wat zijn de belangrijkste afspraken die jullie maken in het team? - Op welke punten bent u niet flexibel?

Wat past u aan uw werk aan zodat het past op dat van uw teamgenoten? - Wat voor invloed had dit op uw eigen werk en op het project?

- Moet u wel eens wachten op een teamgenoot om verder te kunnen gaan met uw eigen taken? Hoe ging dat?

- Komt het voor dat u het oneens bent met hoe een teamgenoot functioneert? Wat doet u in zo’n geval?

Hoe worden de verschillende contributies / inbrengen van elk teamlid samengevoegd - Hoe ziet dit proces eruit? Wie leidt dit proces?

- Zijn er knelpunten tijdens het samenvoegen van contributies, welke? - Wat gaat er juist goed bij het samenvoegen van de contributies? Hoe wordt het eigen en team resultaat gemeten en beoordeeld?

38 Interview protocol English

What is your function within the organization and on which department / what are your tasks? Can you tell something about an important project in which you worked together with people?

- What is your task/role in the project?

- How many team members do you have and what is their role/function? - Which are important deadlines during the project?

- What happens when someone does not make a deadline? Does this had an effect on your work?

- How long has this project been running and when is it finished? What do you need of team members with another function to do your work?

- What do you adjust in your way of working so you get what you need of others? - What are examples? (when do you adjust more and when less?)

- What are elements that influence you adjusting?

- What are important agreements that are made in the team? - About which points you do not want to discuss?

What do you adjust in your own work as to make it fit to the work of others? - What influence does this have on your work?

- What happens when you had to wait for another team member to do your job? - What do you do when you disagree with how a team member functions? How are the inputs of each team member put together

- How does this process go and who is responsible? - What are difficulties during this process?

- What is more easy during this process? How are the team results measured and judged?

39

Appendix II. Codebook

Code Explanation of code Quotes

Coupled functions The degree that tight couplings are existent in the team; events/tasks that are complex and require a high level of collaboration, a high level of control and clarity of tasks, elements rely on other parts of the organization and are fully integrated, elements have a strong

interdependency.

The different inputs are very dependent on each other. […] The deadline for going live with the system was 3 October. This meant that the coordinator had to hire qualified customer advisors in time for this deadline. These customer advisors had to be trained properly to be able to use the new system which meant that ICT had to finish the system and the knowledge database several weeks for the deadline. This in turn meant that the inventory/research specialist had to have a complete knowledge database in time for the training of the customer advisors. The communication specialist was involved with some of these steps, for example she was responsible for communicating the customer advisor vacancies internally and providing interested employees with information (Team A, R2).

Prior to the first deadline the different team members had to work closely together. The subsidy specialist had to have the subsidy agreement ready before I could set a date for people to come to the building to enroll. When this agreement was approved I could set a date and in his turn the supporting specialist could arrange that at that day all equipment necessary for setting up a desk at the front office and was available to enroll people. After I set the date the communication specialist could make an announcement on social media and in the local newspapers. Further, when no important deadlines were in sight, everyone worked separately (Team G, R1).

Coupling process The process of

making contributions between team members compatible during the project.

The different functions can work separately of each other, but at the important deadlines they have to work together and are dependent on each other to continue with their tasks. Because of these interdependencies everyone has to know of each other when, what tasks are needed. And that is why our team planning is so important because in this planning not only deadlines are described or overall tasks, but also when someone needs certain tasks of someone else in order to continue with their own tasks (Team A, R2).

40

what I think would be a solution, but when it comes to meeting with someone who does not take responsibility for a problem I will regard the problem as being the responsibility of the other and ask him what he is going to do about it. When they cannot provide me with a solution I will go to the client and report that the problem cannot be solved by the people who are responsible (Team A, R2). People adjusting to each other mostly had to do with the new ICT system, when there were disagreements and problems about the system. The ICT specialist, coordinator and me have had some serious discussions. […] When these serious conversations had to be held, I was the one to keep the peace and help them find a solution that would fit for both of them. Several weeks before we had to go live with the new system we feared that this was not going to happen. In these weeks I put much extra effort in the project to make the deadline. I also directed the team members more closely to make them more aware of the importance that they worked extra hard to make the deadline (Team A, R2).

When a deadline is coming up and a certain task is not going as it should, like the KCC system not being fully workable, we work and consult more frequently. […] Normally we meet once a week, but when a deadline comes up often a few important things have to be taken care of so we will meet more frequent during the last weeks prior to the deadline. This is to make sure everyone is informed of the progress and determine what still needs to done to make the deadline (Team A, R3).

In my experience a project never goes the way it was planned. I think it is normal that things go different than was expected which mainly has to do that different functions are dependent on each other and need each other which causes delays in the project. So in a project very few things go like they are planned. Of course this has a great influence on deadlines that have to be made, this can be tricky (Team A, R5).

41

used. Now we are in phase 2/3, which means that the IS needs to develop more (Team A, R2).

What I needed was that they [team members] kept me informed about what they were doing and if something was going wrong and needed to be solved. With this information I could respond to problems by taking actions. For example when a trainee reported a complaint with the subsidiary specialist about the employer I needed to know this also because I was responsible and I could call with the trainee to solve the problem (Team G, R1).

Our project leader is very important because he checks our planning/action list, so who has to do what when and he also makes sure this list is being lived up to by every team member. We have our space in the ‘cloud’ on which every team member can put their work and every one of the team has access to this so when they need certain documents or information they can access it easily. The priority for me is to make sure my job is done right. However, if someone else gets stuck, the whole project planning is affected by this. I do not need to know what another team member exactly is doing, but I need to know that everyone makes progress and sticks to the deadlines because than the project is succeeding (Team F, R1). The most important deadlines were the enrollment day, informing the enrolled people if they were chosen or not to follow a traineeship and employers choosing trainees that would fit their organization (Team G, R1). Characteristics that influence coupling Elements that have

an influence on the degree of coupling within a team.

-

- Frequency of interaction (Rasche, 2012) The degree of team members

collaborating during the project.

42

I was informed too late by the subsidiary specialist about a complaint a trainee made. I had to confront him and told him that he had to communicate more with me when important problems were reported so I could act accordingly. This complaint was made during a phase in our project in which we did not collaborate very much, there were no important deadlines coming up so we communicated less to each other than prior to an important deadline. So this shows that it is important to communicate constantly and make agreements about how we work together (Team G, R1).

In the team we frequently met to keep each other informed about important issues. For example, I frequently worked together with the communication specialist because we had different knowledge which had to be put together. For example when placing an announcement on social media I knew the content and wrote the text and she provided a nice lay-out. So it is about providing your specialist knowledge, knowing that the other also has specialist knowledge and knowing that this specific knowledge will complement my knowledge, and working together to create an end product, in this case the announcement on social media (Team G, R1).

- Direct relationships (Rasche, 2012) The degree of team members

communicating direct, face to face in meetings or informal

instead of

communicating only via email or another indirect medium.

Every Monday we have a project team meeting. I really like it that we are all personally together once a week because almost everyone also had other projects to deal with. In this way every team member stays focused on our project. […] We work at the same place on Monday so communication is more efficient (Team A, R1).

In the beginning of the project I mostly focused on frequently emailing team members about the deadlines. Now that I have worked longer in this project I learned that I works better to talk to people face to face and empathize with them and ask what they need to make a deadline. So I think direct personal contact is a better way to make sure people get their tasks done (Team D, R1).