THE INFLUENCE OF NEWCOMERS ON BOUNDARY
SPANNING AS WELL AS TEAM COORDINATION AND
THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO TEAM PERFORMANCE
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
ABSTRACT
Nowadays, employees change their jobs more often and newcomers enter teams. The latter can be an advantage as well as a disadvantage. This survey examines if newcomers influence boundary spanning, defined as the communication among the team borders, and team coordination, specified as the interactions in the team, and if those affect team performance. I expect a positive influence of newcomers on boundary spanning, due to more knowledge, skills and perspectives. However, I predict a negative influence between newcomers and team coordination because the team structure is disrupted. To overcome this circumstance, team diversity, here defined as the different education levels of the team members, is presented as moderator. Team diversity enhances the positive influence of newcomers on boundary spanning and mitigates the negative influence of newcomers on team coordination. An online survey was conducted, in which 40 teams with 176 individuals participated. The results show that only two hypotheses are supported, namely the influence of boundary spanning and team coordination on team performance. The positive results can be used by organizations while examining their boundary spanning management and the processes within the teams. Enhancements in both foster team performance which contributes to the overall profit of the organization.
1
INTRODUCTION
In the past, employees worked for the same company their entire life. Due to economic trends, decreased employment stability and industry reorganizations this attitude changed. Thus, turnover numbers increased and newcomers are needed to replace positions (Bidwell, 2013; Hollister, 2011; Rink, Kane, Ellemers, & Van der Vegt, 2013). Additionally, changes in the general circumstances for organizations generate a need for new employees. Employees, who are used to work in a certain way, are not the best solution anymore when they are stuck in old behaviors (Harris, Li, Boswell, Zhang, & Xie, 2014; Lazear & Gibbs, 2015). Moreover, organizations need to connect with their surroundings to make strategic decisions and recognize trends (Jemison, 1984). This connection can be managed with newcomers, because they are sources of fresh ideas, perspectives, and insights (Lazear & Gibbs, 2015).
The introduction of newcomers in a team has positive effects. Newcomers are often skilled in new technologies and are familiar with recent developments (Lazear & Gibbs, 2015). Moreover, they bring in new knowledge and contacts which are beneficial for teams (Levine, Choi, & Moreland, 2003). These contacts can be used to increase the communication and interaction outside of their own team or even outside the organization (i.e. boundary spanning) (Rink & Ellemers, 2008). Newcomers are used to work in a certain work setting or with particular resources which can reflect new perspectives for the team and thus helps to gain new insights. Furthermore, the experience of newcomers enhances the communication outside the team due to the fact that individuals prefer to deal with people from their own social and economic background and newcomers can add a new background to the team (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998).
2 structure itself to achieve a certain goal together (i.e. team coordination). Moreover, the implementation of a new team member requires resources. The team leader or a current employee needs to take time for the orientation and socialization which includes explaining all processes within the company and introducing the new work environment (Heneman III, Judge, & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2015). Moreover, the team climate can be interrupted. Team members of an existing team know each other and their behaviors as well as unspoken rules within the team. It takes time for newcomers to discover those. The process of searching conformity occupies also time (Gruenfeld, Mannix, Williams, & Neale, 1996). Summarizing, the interruption by newcomers has a negative effect on team coordination.
3 team members learn from each other. This includes, but is not limited to, the topic boundary spanning and thus influences it positively (Mannix & Neale, 2005). With high team diversity, chances are higher, that the newcomer finds a team member who shares similar values. Similarities in beliefs and habits are positive for communication, which promotes team coordination (Milliken & Martins, 1996). Summarizing, the moderator team diversity lets boundary spanning and team coordination contribute to team performance. The following conceptual model summarizes my research approach:
Figure 1: Conceptual model
4 This study aims to combine earlier independently examined issues to one overall model, with the objective to increase the performance of teams. The influence of newcomers on boundary spanning and team coordination as well as the usage of team diversity as moderator gives new insights into theoretical work. Especially the examination of interactions within the team and between teams in one study can expand current literature. Those findings can help organizations to make better decisions about their team constellations, when taking team diversity into consideration. Moreover, the contrasting effects of newcomers emphasize that organizations need to be aware which structures and processes are present and thus if boundary spanning and team coordination can be improved to achieve team performance.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Newcomers5 replacement. In my study, I define newcomers as individuals who enter a team they never worked in before.
Boundary spanning
6 and therefore develop an inner motivation to act in those activities (Joshi, Pandey, & Han, 2009). Moreover, based on the theory, the extend of boundary spanning activities is influenced by the structure of the team. The interactions inside the own team can be used to build relationships outside the team.
Newcomers and boundary spanning
Newcomers can bring their own expertise, perspectives, and insights into a team and can have skills in new technologies or are informed about recent developments (Lazear & Gibbs, 2015). They are able to benefit the team if their skills are advantageous for the tasks (Levine et al., 2003). Milliken and Martins (1996) state that communication outside the team increases, when newcomers enter a team and have a diverse background. People like to communicate with individuals with the same background. Thus, newcomers enhance the engagement in boundary spanning activities (Ancona & Caldwell, 1990). Moreover, newcomers can have contacts which encourage or activate the communication with other teams they know (Rink & Ellemers, 2008). Especially when team members change teams within the organization and the former team has an interface with the new one, communication will increase due to the personal contact. A newcomer in a team has the shortest tenure compared with existing team members. This difference can be beneficial for the communication with others outside the team because people prefer to interact with individuals who have a similar tenure (Joshi et al., 2009). It can be expected, that the positive aspects increase with the number of newcomers added. More newcomers mean more knowledge and more contacts which are positive for boundary spanning. The given findings lead me to the first hypothesis:
7 Team performance
Teams consist of two or more people with different tasks who work together to achieve one goal (Brannick & Prince, 1997). Team performance is the extent to which the team achieves its targets. These targets are set in advance and can include the achievement of time goals, budget goals and quality goals (Hoegl et al., 2004). Time especially matters in fast moving industries, where the generation of new ideas is necessary for the company to survive. Exceeding costs reduce the overall profit of an organization and low product quality leads to customer dissatisfaction which influences their future purchase decision negatively. The achievement of more than one goal enhances the overall performance. Another factor which influences team performance is innovation. Creative thinking and the identification, adaption as well as realization of ideas, created in the process, are necessary for innovation and leads to increased team performance (De Dreu & West, 2001).
Boundary spanning and team performance
8 team performance. To achieve a performance increase the knowledge of all employees among the team's borders in an organization is combined (Argote & Ingram, 2000), which leads to boundary spanning activities. Summarizing, boundary spanning contributes to higher performance (Marrone et al., 2007) resulting in my second hypothesis:
H2: Boundary spanning has a positive effect on team performance.
Team coordination
In contrast to boundary spanning, which focuses on the communication outside the team, this study also examines the opposite aspect team coordination, which represent the interactions inside the team (Choi, 2002). Team coordination is a feature of teamwork (Brannick & Prince, 1997; Mathieu & Rapp, 2009) and defines the process through which individuals work coordinated together to achieve a common goal which is not reachable by one person alone (Gorman, Amazeen, & Cooke, 2010). Often, a team includes people with a variation in skills, experiences, and personalities, which allows it to react to unpredictable changes (Gorman et al., 2010; Hoegl et al., 2004). Without team coordination, resources are not combined but the combination is the process which improves the work of teams. Research shows it is impossible that all team members handle all information. Therefore, teams coordinate themselves by dividing the information according to their expertise (Brannick & Prince, 1997; Rico, Sánchez-Manzanares, Gil, & Gibson, 2008). Coordination within the team includes factors like timing, a backup mechanism, and meeting arrangements. Furthermore, teams need to coordinate how to react with disagreements in a decision process (Mathieu & Rapp, 2009).
Newcomers and team coordination
9 that the negative influence is weaker when team members work mainly independently instead of close together. Additionally, newcomers can interrupt team coordination because they are not familiar with the remaining team members and current members withhold instead of speak up when their opinions differ (Gruenfeld et al., 1996). The missing familiarity with the newcomer has the effect that the team needs to search for conformity (Gruenfeld et al., 1996). Moreover, the effectiveness of every individual team member influences team performance. Thus, it is important that new members perform quickly and improve their performance to increase team effectiveness and reduce process losses (Chen, 2005). With the introduction of newcomers, the existing structure and coordination is interrupted. Newcomers are seen as different which needs acceptance before their potential is useful. This process disrupts the existing structure and thus has a negative effect on the coordination in the team (Kane & Rink, 2016). Summarizing, newcomers have a negative effect on the quality of interactions within teams (Levine et al., 2003).
10 interrupt the main processes in teams (Van der Vegt, Bunderson, & Kuipers, 2010) which leads to my third hypothesis:
H3: Newcomers have a negative effect on team coordination.
Team coordination and team performance
According to Steiner (1972), performance can only be achieved if the actions of all members follow a plan and hence coordination is present. Mixing plans leads to confusion and affects the outcome negatively. An appropriate coordination of the team members leads to well defined structures which includes the overall goal and the single steps each individual needs to fulfill to achieve the team goal (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). The study of Hoegl et al. (2004) shows that coordination within a team is positive for the quality of teamwork which contributes to team performance. Decision making is improved and faster when team coordination is present, because the team members follow discussion rules. Moreover, conflicts between team members are avoided or easier resolved which leads to a better basis to work on. Those advantages enhance team performance (Choi, 2002; Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001). Team coordination is necessary to achieve the target when unpredictable circumstantial changes occur. Furthermore, coordination in the form of planning is important when team members work individually on their task and combine the results in the end to one outcome (Marks, DeChurch, Mathieu, Panzer, & Alonso, 2005). Team performance can only be achieved when the process of coordination is done properly. Only then, it results in the desired outcome. The positive attributes of coordination help teams to achieve team performance which leads to my fourth hypothesis:
11 Team diversity
According to He, Butler, and King (2007) the team members’ characteristics distribution defines diversity. Diversity includes a wide range of aspects and is split into various categories (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). This study focuses on diversity in skills and knowledge because it is especially relevant in work settings and it can influence interactions (Milliken & Martins, 1996). The aspect of diversity in skills and knowledge includes educational differences, functional background and occupational background, industry experience, and organizational membership (Milliken & Martins, 1996). With examining the education level the focus of this study lies on educational diversity which is on the cognitive diversity level (Carter & Phillips, 2017). The educational level is easy to identify in my study, while other aspects would be too difficult because the participating companies are from many different industries. Additionally, Milliken and Martins (1996) state that most of the studies which examine diversity in skills and knowledge work with teams at the top management. To gain new insights, I examine educational diversity with teams who are not from the top management. The social categorization view emphasizes the negative aspects of diversity, namely less commitment and more conflicts because people prefer to work with others who are similar to themselves. In contrast, the decision-making perspective focuses on the positive effects of diversity. Those are creativity and effective decision making resulting from the fact that more knowledge, skills and abilities are present (Guillaume et al., 2013; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998).
12 et al., 1996; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Newcomers are able to learn more from the team and can use this knowledge to build relationships beyond the team boundaries (Mannix & Neale, 2005). In contrast, low team diversity has less resources which can be provided to the newcomers. With more different members in a team it is easier for newcomers to find at least one person who has similar beliefs and values, even if they knew nobody beforehand. The matching of those attributes are helpful to generate sympathy within the team, also known as the similarity - attraction paradigm, and thus can increase the motivation of the newcomer to contribute to the team which is beneficial for boundary spanning (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Moreover, the strong identification achieved with a strong relationship among the group members increases boundary dimensions and therefore can have a positive influence on boundary spanning (Schotter, Mudambi, Doz, & Gaur, 2017). However, individuals who are not well integrated into the team may contribute less which also affects boundary spanning negatively. Summarizing, the success of boundary spanning increases with higher team diversity (Schotter et al., 2017) and decreases with low team diversity. Thus, I propose the following fifth hypothesis:
H5: Team diversity moderates the relationship between newcomers and boundary
spanning. The positive relationship is stronger when team diversity is high rather than
low.
13 newcomers to adapt with at least parts of the team. Thus, high team diversity supports task coordination activities positively while low team diversity interrupts the communication when the newcomer is not able to understand the team (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Joshi et al., 2009). Diversity increases the sharing of relevant information. New members are certain, that there are team members who understand them and can better determine which information is important in the given situation (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002). With low team diversity newcomers may hold back because elaborating their ideas in detail to all members would waste too much time. The mentioned findings lead to my sixth hypothesis:
H6: Team diversity moderates the relationship between newcomers and team
coordination. The negative relationship is mitigated when team diversity is high rather
than low.
Combining the findings: moderated mediation hypotheses
The theoretical findings of hypotheses one, two and five (figure 2), are combined to a moderated mediation relationship where newcomer is the independent variable, boundary spanning the mediator, team performance the dependent variable and team diversity the moderator. Thus, the seventh hypothesis reflects the upper part of my model and is the following:
H7: Team diversity moderates the relationship between newcomers and team
performance, as mediated by boundary spanning. The positive indirect relationship is
stronger when team diversity is high rather than low.
14 coordination as mediator, team performance as dependent variable and team diversity as moderator. Concluding, the eighth hypothesis is the following:
H8: Team diversity moderates the indirect relationship between newcomers and team
performance, as mediated by team coordination. The negative indirect relationship is
mitigated when team diversity is high rather than low.
Figure 2: Conceptual model with hypotheses
METHODOLOGY
Procedure and Data collection15 team leader and some by the team members, thus the survey is divided in one for team leaders and one for team members. To link the survey results of each team we asked the participants in which company and which department/team they are working in. When the team leader and a minimum of three members replied, the team was counted for the study. In total, we received 190 responses, which consist of 47 team leader answers and 147 team member answers. With taking the criteria for a team into consideration, the data set consists of 40 teams which includes 176 participants divided in 40 team leaders and 136 team members.
Out of those 176 participants, 70 are male and 102 female. The remaining 4 choose the option anonymous. The youngest participant is 18 while the oldest is 60 years old and the average age is approximately 40 years. The average team member size is around 12 with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 50. In average, 2 newcomers entered the team in the last year, while 0 is the minimum and 6 the maximum. The participants have 17 different nationalities. The most prominent nationality is German (54,5 %), followed by Cypriot (10,8 %) and Italian (9,7 %). A detailed overview is given in table 2.
Industry of companies
# teams per
industry in %
Response
rate Team location
Construction 1 2,5% 57% Germany Education 3 7,5% 50% Germany Engineering 1 2,5% 100% Germany Financial 1 2,5% 27% France Health 4 10,0% 44% Germany Insurance 5 12,5% 34% Germany/Spain Legal 1 2,5% 80% Cyprus
Public service 14 35,0% 31% Belgium/Germany
Retail 5 12,5% 29% Germany/Italy/Portugal
Service 2 5,0% 38% Italy
Technology 3 7,5% 85% Cyprus
16 Nationality Frequency Percentage
Belgian 8 4,5% Bulgarian 1 0,6% Croatian 1 0,6% Cypriot 19 10,8% Dutch 3 1,7% English 4 2,3% French 8 4,5% Georgian 1 0,6% German 96 54,5% Greek 3 1,7% Hungarian 1 0,6% Italian 17 9,7% Norwegian 1 0,6% Polish 1 0,6% Portuguese 5 2,8% Slovakian 1 0,6% Spanish 6 3,4%
Table 2: Nationalities of participants Measurement
To measure the number of newcomers, I asked the team leaders how many members entered the team during the last year. I chose one year because this is the period of time which is easy to remember and it is a usual period of time used in the literature (Boswell, Shipp, Payne, & Culbertson, 2009).
With the scale Ancona and Caldwell (1992a) used in their study, I measured boundary
spanning. Other authors used the scale as well (e.g. Marrone et al., 2007). I provided these
17 for my study because they aimed to get ideas from the market or competitors. I focused on boundary spanning inside the organization. The last three items were not included because their major objective is keeping information inside the boundary. The five remaining items are suitable for my study because they represented interactions to gain new ideas or solve problems (Ancona & Caldwell, 1990, 1992a). I modified them for the organization structure because they are specialized for design topics. The detailed questions are in appendix A.
I measured team coordination with the developed scale of Lewis (2003). The team members answered the questions on a five-point likert scale, where 1 is “strongly disagree” and 5 “strongly agree”. Item 3 “Our team needed to backtrack and start over a lot.” as well as item five “There was much confusion about how we would accomplish the task.” were reversed. The detailed questions are in appendix A.
18 To measure team diversity, I adapted the method Kearney, Gebert, and Voelpel (2009) used and Harrison and Klein (2007) presented. I asked the participants for their highest educational degree, which reflects their knowledge and skills, and transferred these with the Blau’s index (Blau, 1977). All team members have one particular education level. All education levels combined were the total number of possible categories. The formula of the Blau’s index is 1 − ∑𝐾𝑘=1𝑝𝑘² where p is the percentage of each category within a team and K the number of different categories. The Blau’s index can range from 0 (1-∑(1²)=0; when no diversity is present) to (K-1)/K (Harrison & Klein, 2007), when all team members have a different educational level. To simplify the analysis, the participants of the survey were able to choose their highest level of education on a scale from 1 to 8 (1: Habilitation, 2: PhD, 3: Master, 4: Bachelor, 5: Apprenticeship, 6: A-level, 7: Middle school, 8: No school degree). The highest amount of answers from one team were 7, thus the highest possible diversity index in the study is 0.86 ((7-1/)7=0.86).
Control variable:
19 Frauendorfer et al. (2015), smaller teams perform better. I asked the team leader about the number of team members to receive the team size. Moreover, I asked for the demographic factors tenure, age and gender to make sure that these variables did not influence the results.
RESULTS
Descriptive StatisticsIn the following, the results of the analysis are presented. Before testing the hypotheses, the raw data was prepared. In the first step, I calculated the Cronbach’s Alpha (table 3). It was evident, that the second reversed question of the innovation block was not recognized by all participants. The Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.42 while deleting the question from the datafile the Cronbach’s Alpha increased to 0.860. A possible solution for the inconsistent answers can be the necessary translations to get higher response rates in the different countries. While trying to make sure that the wording has the same meaning, differences in the language are unavoidable. The second step was the ICC 1 and ICC 2 test to measure the within- and between-team consistency. While the ICC 1 measures the variance within the subject, the ICC 2 reflects the reliability of the average ratings (Bartko, 1976). The ICC 1 results were all between 0.390 and 0.543 and all ICC 2 results were above 0.742 (table 3). Thus, the team data is reliable on the within and between reliability and was aggregated.
Variable Cronbach's Alpha ICC 1 ICC 2
Team performance 0.817 not applicable not applicable
Innovation 0.860 not applicable not applicable
BS TL 0.883 not applicable not applicable
BS TM 0.870 0.543 0.805
COORD 0.738 0.475 0.759
Interdependence 0.860 0.390 0.742
Table 3: Cronbach’s Alpha and ICC
20 (diversity index and newcomer), the log transformation was added by one to prevent many zero values which lower the sample size in the following analysis. Table 4 shows the Pearson Correlation of the data, including the means and standard deviations.
21 Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Newcomer .99 .56 2. Boundary spanning 1.28 .19 .286 3. Coordination 3.75 .45 .290 .544** 4. Team diversity .30 .19 -.366* -.058 -.127 5. Team Performance 1.36 .13 .388* .351* .469** -.347* 6. Interdependence 1.37 .12 .172 .557** .404** -.112 .133 7. Team size 2.27 .69 .633** .109 .090 -.204 .351* .115 8. Age 40.98 7.88 .078 .075 .152 -.327* .312* .026 .260 9. Tenure 1.25 .14 -.107 -.096 -.001 -.206 .198 -.114 .224 .419** 10. Gender 1.16 .32 -.383* -.265 -.003 -.041 -.206 -.226 -.279 -.012 -.095 N=40, * p < .05, ** p < .01
22 Hypotheses testing
To test my first hypothesis, a positive relationship between newcomers and boundary spanning, I did a linear regression with these two variables. Though the relationship shows a positive direction, the effect is not significant (B: 0.100, SE: 0.055, sig: 0.073) and thus hypothesis one is rejected. Including the control variable within and between interdependence the result remained insignificant and a significant effect of interdependence on boundary spanning was present (B: 0.802, SE: 0.206, sig: 0.000).
My second hypothesis expects that boundary spanning has a positive influence on team performance. The linear regression shows a significant effect, which is positive (B: 0.237, SE: 0.103, sig: 0.026). With the control variables team size and age, the positive effect remains significant.
My third hypothesis predicts, that newcomers have a negative effect on the coordination within the team. The analysis follows the same steps as used for the first hypothesis, with the result, that no significant relationship is present and the effect is positive instead of negative (B: 0.235, SE: 0.126, sig: 0.069). So, my third hypothesis is rejected as well.
According to my fourth hypothesis, I expect a positive relationship between team coordination and team performance, which was supported by the analysis (B: 0.137, SE: 0.042, sig: 0.002). Adding team size and age as control variables, the positive effect remains significant.
23 interaction effect occurs, thus hypothesis five is rejected. The graph in figure 3 which relates to hypothesis five shows that the effect of diversity is stronger with low diversity. With a higher number of newcomers, team performance increases under low diversity. Under high diversity, team performance also increases with more newcomers but the effect is less steep than under low diversity. Hence, with many newcomers, a low diversity level is better and with a few newcomers a high diversity is better for team performance. The effect on boundary spanning is only slightly different. I predicted, that the most contribution to boundary spanning is reached with high team diversity and many newcomers, which is not proven by the results.
I examined hypothesis six with the same procedure as hypothesis five. The results show also no significant interaction effect (table 5), which leads to the conclusion, that no moderation effect of diversity on the relationship of newcomer and coordination is present. The graph (figure 4) shows that high team diversity is beneficial for less newcomers, while low team diversity is beneficial for more newcomers. I predicted the first combination, but the second one shows a higher contribution to team coordination.
Boundary spanning Team coordination
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2
Interdependence .110 (.026)** 104 (.027)** .107 (.026)** Newcomer (NC) .043 (.028) .055 (.029)* .127 (.076) .140 (.080) Diversity (DIV) .015 (.028) .024 (.028) -.015 (.076) -.005 (.078) Interaction (NC * DIV) -.041 (.027) -.044 (.075) R² .311 .353 .393 .085 .094 R² change .042 .040 .009
N= 40, standardized regression coefficients, SD in brackets confidence interval 95 %, *p < .05, **p < 0.01
24 Figure 3: Graph moderation effect on the relationship of newcomer and boundary spanning
Figure 4: Graph moderation effect on the relationship of newcomer and team coordination 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2
Low Newcomer High Newcomer
Bo
undar
y
s
pa
nni
ng
Low Team diversity High Team diversity 3,5 3,6 3,7 3,8 3,9 4 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5Low Newcomer High Newcomer
25 To test hypothesis seven and eight I used model seven in PROCESS while I divided my model in the upper and lower part (see figure 2). To run the analysis, I used the standardized variables except for the dependent variable team performance.
For hypothesis seven the newcomer was the independet variable, team performance the dependent variable, boundary spanning the mediator and team diversity the moderator. Table 6 shows that no moderated mediation is present and therefore hypothesis seven is rejected.
coefficient SE t p Constant -.0536 .1984 -.2704 .7884 Newcomer (NC) .3487 .2049 1.7020 .0974 Diversity (DIV) .0795 .2121 .3748 .7100 Interaction (NC * DIV) -.1637 .1683 -.9729 .3371 R²= .1082, F=2.1057, p=.1166
Conditional indirect effect of newcomer on team performance at the values of the
moderator team diversity Effect LLCI ULCI
-1 SD .1418 -.0045 .5102
mean .0965 -.0118 .3958
+1SD .0512 -.0678 .3431
Index of moderated mediation
Index SE LLCI ULCI
-.0453 .0532 -.1921 .0262
N= 40, confidence interval 95 %, *p < .05, **p < 0.01, based on a bootstrap sample of 5000
Table 6: Moderated mediation hypothesis seven
26 the mediator and team diversity the moderator. The results are presented in table 7 and show no moderated mediation effect. Thus, hypothesis eight is also rejected.
Table 7: Moderated mediation hypothesis eight
DISCUSSION
The study examined which influence factors determine the relationship between newcomers and team performance. In the literature, positive as well as negative effects are present. I hypothesized, that newcomers are beneficial for boundary spanning, but have a negative impact on team coordination. Both variables, boundary spanning as well as team
coefficient SE t p Constant -.0318 .1658 -.1920 .8488 Newcomer (NC) .3077 .1753 1.7557 .0876 Diversity (DIV) -.0115 .1724 -.0667 .9472 Interaction (NC * DIV) -.0972 .1675 -.5863 .5614 R²= .0904, F=1.2447, p=.3079
Conditional indirect effect of newcomer on team performance at the values of the
moderator team diversity Effect LLCI ULCI
Team coordination -1 SD .0218 -.0007 .0728
mean .0166 -.0001 .0471
+1SD .0113 -.0078 .0439
Index of moderated mediation
Index SE LLCI ULCI
-.0052 .0101 -.0337 .0076
27 coordination are positive contributors to team performance. To find a solution for the contrasting effect of newcomers I used team diversity as moderator. I hypothesized that boundary spanning increases with a high team diversity and that team diversity mitigates the negative relationship of newcomers and team coordination. However, only boundary spanning and team coordination had a significant positive effect on team performance. The following outlines the results in more detail.
According to the literature I expected a positive influence of newcomers on boundary spanning. However, this relationship was not supported by my results. A possible explanation lies in the fact that newcomers enter a team differently. For example, newcomers who are introduced by a current team member or who have a mentor are more accepted than those who enter the team without (Moreland & Levine, 2002). The acceptance of newcomers is an important factor. It enhances the chance that their knowledge and skills are recognized and thus add value to the team (Bunderson, Van der Vegt, & Sparrowe, 2014). Furthermore, I expected newcomers to have a negative impact on the coordination within the team. While the literature supports my hypothesis, my results show a positive effect, although not significant. A possible explanation for this contrasting outcome could be team reflection. According to Rink et al. (2013), the presence of a newcomer can make the team reflect on their processes and change routines. This can be beneficial for team coordination when the newcomer is the release to improve internal team structures. Moreover, the need for coordination can be influenced by factors which were not part of my study. For instance, task interdependence highly increases the need for coordination. Thus, with low task interdependence a negative impact of newcomers on coordination is less likely (Moye & Langfred, 2004).
28 team members. Even though the results were not significant, the results predict a positive influence of newcomers on both processes. Therefore, the study shows, that further research can lead to new insights on the relationship of newcomers and team coordination. New studies with a more precise documentation when the newcomers entered can expand the current literature and generate new aspects which were not examined until now.
The results support the hypothesis, that boundary spanning has a positive effect on team performance (Drach-Zahavy, 2011; Faraj & Yan, 2009; Marks et al., 2005; Marrone et al., 2007; Schotter et al., 2017). Information needs to be imported into a team from external sources and is combined with existing resources to create value. This process emphasizes the importance of communication with outsiders to gain performance (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988). Moreover, boundary spanning fosters creative problem solving which supports achieving goals, and hence performance (Tippmann, Sharkey Scott, & Parker, 2017). The expected positive influence of team coordination on team performance (Andres & Zmud, 2002; Dailey, 1980; Maynard, Mathieu, Rapp, & Gilson, 2012; Reagans, Miron-Spektor, & Argote, 2016) was also supported. Knowledge alone does not lead to performance. However, good structured processes can leverage knowledge to a long lasting advantage against competitors (Lewis, Lange, & Gillis, 2005).
29 While I expected high team diversity to be beneficial for boundary spanning, the results show the effect only, though not significant, when a few newcomers enter a team (figure 3). Concerning the aspect of team diversity, Ancona and Caldwell (1992b) elaborate that high team diversity increases boundary spanning because newcomers who miss a related spirit in the team due to high team diversity, search for people outside the team to communicate.
My assumption that high team diversity moderates the relationship of newcomers and team coordination is only partly supported, though not significant. Figure 4 shows differences between a large and a small number of newcomers. Team diversity is more beneficial for team coordination with a few newcomers and with more newcomers less team diversity leads to higher team coordination. While team diversity has many advantages, it also makes processes in the team more difficult and the negative effect can dominate the positive (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). For example, more time is needed to define goals in diverse teams due to tensions and conflicts within the team, which negatively affects the coordination (Hambrick, Cho, & Chen, 1996). When many newcomers additionally enter the team, the process takes even longer and thus less newcomers are better when high team diversity is present. The group size increases when newcomers enter additionally. Cohesiveness, a factor which contributes to team coordination, is reduced in larger groups, compared to smaller ones. Therefore, many newcomers are less beneficial for team coordination (Mullen & Copper, 1994).
30 organizational knowledge. Secondly, precise instructions how to fulfill the tasks are needed to master them and thirdly, newcomers should ask what is expected from them in their new position to get role clarity (Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994; Morrison, 1993, 2002; Ostroff & Koslowski, 1992). To gain all those information, it is easier to have less newcomers, thus more attention and time is available for the individual. Team diversity reflects different perspectives on the same topic which ensures that the given information is complete. Though not proven by my study, the theoretical findings show that newcomers can be a double-edged sword. I attempted to solve that issue with introducing team diversity as moderator. Even with non-significant results, the relationship seems to be more complex than predicted beforehand. This new insight can be used for future studies to focus on the moderating relationship and help to examine under which specific conditions team diversity adds value.
Due to the fact that both moderation effects and also two direct effects were not significant, I further did not expect a significant moderated mediation relationship which would have been the logical conclusion from hypotheses one to six.
Limitations
There are some limitations, which need to be taken into consideration and can explain the high number of non-significant results. Firstly, the sample is quite small for a team based study. Higher response rates enhance reliability. Moreover, the answers were given by 40 mainly unrelated teams from different companies, who were different in their size and structure. To receive answers from teams out of one big organization would be more desirable. Especially the communication and interaction with other teams inside the organization is better to measure when one single company is approached.
31 more forms of diversity which can influence the variables examined in this study (Milliken & Martins, 1996). Examining all would have exceeded the purpose of this thesis. This limitation is a point for further research, especially because the topic diversity shows inconsistent findings in the existing literature (Guillaume et al., 2013).
The study only examines the team activities at a certain point of time. However, especially boundary spanning and team coordination are processes, which last for a long time and vary during said time, when circumstances change. As example, when one task is done and the next one starts, it is possible that all resources are already available within the team. Participating in the study at a certain point of time can be influenced by how much boundary activities are necessary at that moment. Therefore, it can be interesting to examine the relationships with the same participating teams over a longer period in several surveys, which will be spread at different points of time.
Future Research
While this study focused on team diversity, another interesting approach could be the specific examination how the newcomer’s background influences the team constellation and hence the influence on boundary spanning and coordination within the team. Increasing diversity due to a newcomer or having a similar background can influence the adaption of the newcomer and thus how the team performs under different aspects (e.g. how fast does the team work together and when is the newcomer integrated in the team). Moreover, newcomers can be added to a team due to their specific knowledge which is needed in the present situation (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992b).
32 Marrone (2010) states, that besides team performance other factors should be taken into consideration as outcome of boundary spanning. However, team coordination can also predict boundary spanning activities. Further research could answer this question.
The study does not take a close look on who is responsible for boundary spanning. Druskat and Wheeler (2003) found out, that teams are successful, when boundary spanning is done by the leader. Besides that, it is also possible that the whole team is involved, maybe every individual is responsible for a particular relationship outside the team. Another possibility would be, that only one team member is responsible for the interaction among the team boundaries. This idea finds also support in the existing literature. According to Marrone (2010), a potential research topic would be to figure out who is connecting to the outside and which impact it has on the results. The question “How does an individual become a boundary spanner” could then be answered (Schotter & Beamish, 2011).
Practical Implications
The results of this study show that boundary spanning as well as team coordination have a positive effect on team performance. The performance of a team is a highly relevant contribution to the organization’s success. Thus, organizations can evaluate their boundary spanning activities and how the teams coordinate themselves. Moreover, actions can be made to enhance both and thus use the positive effect on team performance.
33 to get into contact afterwards and thus is beneficial for boundary spanning within the organization.
Moreover, team leaders can enhance team coordination with training to increase as example collaboration (Hoegl et al., 2004). Especially when newcomers enter a team it can be a good start for the group to do a workshop together. The team is able to become acquainted with each other and important team rules can be transferred. Moreover, longevity and trust are beneficial for the relationships within teams (Rico et al., 2008) and therefore team leaders should support the coordination within the team to promote team performance. The leader can be a positive role model by trusting the own team.
CONCLUSION
34
References
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA : Sage Publications.
Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. 1977. Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. The Academy of Management Review, 2 (2): 217–230.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1988. Beyond task and maintenance: Defining external functions in groups. Group & Organization Studies, 13 (4): 468–494.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1990. Beyond boundary spanning: Managing external dependence in product development teams. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 1 (2): 119–135.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992a. Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 (4): 634–665. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992b. Demography and design: Predictors of new product
team performance. Organization Science, 3 (3): 321–341.
Andres, H. P., & Zmud, R. W. 2002. A contingency approach to software project coordination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18 (3): 41–70.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. 2000. Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82 (1): 150–169.
Baer, M., Leenders, R., Oldham, G., & Vadera, A. 2010. Win or lose the battle for creativity: The power and perils of intergroup competition. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (4): 827–845.
35 Becker, T. E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8 (3): 274–289.
Bidwell, M. J. 2013. What happened to long-term employment? The role of worker power and environmental turbulence in explaining declines in worker tenure. Organization Science, 24 (4): 1061–1082.
Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. 2000. An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-directed team environment. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (3): 439–450. Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New
York.
Boswell, W. R., Shipp, A. J., Payne, S. C., & Culbertson, S. S. 2009. Changes in newcomer job satisfaction over time: Examining the pattern of honeymoons and hangovers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (4): 844–858.
Brannick, M. T., & Prince, C. 1997. An overview of team performance measurement. In M. T. Brannick & Salas Eduardo (Eds.), Team Performance Assessment and Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Psychology Press.
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2002. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. The Academy of Management Journal, 45 (5): 875–893.
Bunderson, J. S., Van der Vegt, G. S., & Sparrowe, R. T. 2014. Status inertia and member replacement in role-differentiated teams. Organization Science, 25 (1): 57–72.
Carter, A. B., & Phillips, K. W. 2017. The double-edged sword of diversity: Toward a dual pathway model. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11: e12313.
36 Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences background of socialization research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (5): 730–743.
Chen, G. 2005. Newcomer adaption in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (1): 101–116.
Choi, J. N. 2002. External activities and team effectiveness: Review and theoretical development. Small Group Research, 33 (2): 181–208.
Cummings, J. N. 2004. Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50 (3): 352–364.
Dailey, R. C. 1980. A Path analysis of R & D team coordination and performance. Decision Sciences, 11 (2): 357–369.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. 2001. Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (6): 1191–1201. De Vries, T. A., Walter, F., Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Essens, P. J. M. D. 2014. Antecedents of
individuals’ interteam coordination: Broad functional experiences as a mixed blessing. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (5): 1334–1359.
Drach-Zahavy, A. 2011. Interorganizational teams as boundary spanners: The role of team diversity, boundedness, and extrateam links. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20 (1): 89–118.
Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. 2003. Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 46 (4): 435–457. Faraj, S., & Yan, A. 2009. Boundary work in knowledge teams. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94 (3): 604–617.
37 insiders, work groups, and organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 4 (3): 213–233.
Frauendorfer, D., Schmid Mast, M., Sanchez-Cortes, D., & Gatica-Perez, D. 2015. Emergent power hierarchies and group performance. International Journal of Psychology, 50 (5): 392–396.
Gorman, J. C., Amazeen, P. G., & Cooke, N. J. 2010. Team coordination dynamics. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 14 (3): 265–289.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. 1996. Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (1): 1– 15.
Guillaume, Y. R. F., Dawson, J. F., Woods, S. A., Sacramento, C. A., & West, M. A. 2013. Getting diversity at work to work: What we know and what we still don’t know. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86 (2): 123–141.
Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. 1996. The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (4): 659–684.
Harris, T. B., Li, N., Boswell, W. R., Zhang, X., & Xie, Z. 2014. Getting what’s new from newcomers: Empowering leadership, creativity, and adjustment in the socialization Context. Personnel Psychology, 67 (3): 567–604.
Harrison, D., & Klein, K. J. 2007. What’s the difference ? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32 (4): 1199– 1228.
38 software project teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24 (2): 261–292. Heneman III, H. G., Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. 2015. Staffing Organizations, 8th
ed. Mishawaka: IN: Pangloss Industries.
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. 2001. Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12 (4): 435–449.
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 (1): 38–55.
Hollister, M. 2011. Employment stability in the U.S. labor market: Rhetoric versus reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 37 (1): 305–324.
Iorio, J., & Taylor, J. E. 2014. Boundary object efficacy: The mediating role of boundary objects on task conflict in global virtual project networks. International Journal of Project Management, 32 (1): 7–17.
Jemison, D. B. 1984. The importance of boundary-spanning roles in strategic decision making. Journal of Management Studies, 21 (2): 131–152.
Joshi, A., Pandey, N., & Han, G. 2009. Bracketing team boundary spanning: An examination of task-based, team-level, and contextual antecedents. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30 (6): 731–759.
Kane, A. A., & Rink, F. 2016. When and how groups utilize dissenting newcomer knowledge: Newcomers’ future prospects condition the effect of language-based identity strategies. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19 (5): 591–607.
39 52 (3): 581–598.
Lazear, E. P., & Gibbs, M. 2015. Personnel Economics in Practice, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley. Levine, J. M., Choi, H.-S., & Moreland, R. L. 2003. Newcomer innovation in work teams. In Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration, 202–224. Oxford University Press. Lewis, K. 2003. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and
validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (4): 587–604.
Lewis, K., Lange, D., & Gillis, L. 2005. Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science, 16 (6): 581–598.
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. 2005. What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6 (2): 31– 55.
Marks, M. a, DeChurch, L. a, Mathieu, J. E., Panzer, F. J., & Alonso, A. 2005. Teamwork in multiteam systems. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (5): 964–971.
Marrone, J. A. 2010. Team boundary spanning: A multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. Journal of Management, 36 (4): 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 (6): 1423–1439.
Mathieu, J. E., & Rapp, T. L. 2009. Laying the foundation for successful team performance trajectories: The roles of team charters and performance strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (1): 90–103.
40 Organizational Behavior, 33: 342–365.
McCarter, M. W., & Sheremeta, R. M. 2013. You can’t put old wine in new bottles: The effect of newcomers on coordination in groups. PLoS ONE, 8 (1): e55058.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. 1996. Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of in organizational diversity. The Academy of Management Review, 21 (2): 402–433.
Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. 2001. Getting it together : Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (6): 1251–1262.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. 2002. Socialization and trust in work groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5 (3): 185–201.
Morrison, E. W. 1993. Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (2): 173–183.
Morrison, E. W. 2002. Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management, 45 (6): 1149–1160.
Moye, N. A., & Langfred, C. W. 2004. Information sharing and group conflict: Going beyond decision making to understand the effects of information sharing on group performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15 (4): 381–410.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. 1994. The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115 (2): 210–227.
Naylor, J. C., & Briggs, G. E. 1965. Team-training effectiveness under various conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49 (4): 223–229.
41 role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45 (4): 849–874.
Reagans, R., Miron-Spektor, E., & Argote, L. 2016. Knowledge utilization, coordination, and team performance. Organization Science, 27 (5): 1108–1124.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. 2004. Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 15 (1): 55–77. Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., & Gibson, C. 2008. Team implicit coordination
processes: A team knowledge-based approach. The Academy of Management Review, 33 (1): 163–184.
Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. 2008. Diversity, newcomers, and team innovation: The importance of a common identity. In B. Mannix, M. Neale, & K. Phillips (Eds.), Diversity & Groups. Research on managing groups and teams, 221–243. Stanford: JAI Press.
Rink, F., Kane, A. A., Ellemers, N., & Van der Vegt, G. 2013. Team receptivity to newcomers: Five decades of evidence and future research themes. Academy of Management Annals, 7 (1): 247–293.
Robert, L. P., & Romero, D. M. 2017. The influence of diversity and experience on the effects of crowd size. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68 (2): 321–332.
Schotter, A., & Beamish, P. W. 2011. Performance effects of MNC headquarters-subsidiary conflict and the role of boundary spanners: The case of headquarter initiative rejection. Journal of International Management, 17 (3): 243–259.
Schotter, A. P. J., Mudambi, R., Doz, Y. L., & Gaur, A. 2017. Boundary spanning in global organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 54 (4): 403–421.
42 Tippmann, E., Sharkey Scott, P., & Parker, A. 2017. Boundary capabilities in MNCs: Knowledge transformation for creative solution development. Journal of Management Studies, 54 (4): 455–482.
Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. 2005. Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. The Academy of Management Journal, 48 (3): 532–547.
Van der Vegt, G. S., Bunderson, S., & Kuipers, B. 2010. Why turnover matters in self-managing work teams: Learning, social integration, and task flexibility. Journal of Management, 36 (5): 1168–1191.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. 2004. Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (6): 1008–1022.
Wakefield, R. L., Leidner, D. E., & Garrison, G. 2008. Research note - A model of conflict, leadership, and performance in virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 19 (4): 434– 455.
Wanous, J. P. 1977. Organizational entry: Newcomers moving from outside to inside. Psychological Bulletin, 84 (4): 601–618.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20: 77–140.
43
Appendix A
Team performance:
Five-point likert scale: 1 “far below average”, 2 “below average”, 3 “average”, 4 “above average” 5 “far above average”.
“How would you rate the performance of your team in terms of:” 1. Efficiency. 2. Quality. 3. Overall achievement. 4. Productivity. 5. Adherence to deadlines. 6. Work excellence.
Five-point likert scale: 1 “strongly disagree”, 2 “disagree”, 3 “neither agree nor disagree”, 4 “agree”, 5 “strongly agree”
“Please rate the following statements concerning the innovation of your team:” 1. The team implements new ideas to improve the quality of products and services.
2. The team gives little consideration to new and alternative methods and procedures for doing their work. (reversed)
3. The team often produces new services, methods or procedures. 4. The team is an innovative team.
Team coordination
44 “Please rate the following statements concerning the coordination within your team:”
1. Our team worked together in a well-coordinated fashion. 2. Our team had very few misunderstandings about what to do. 3. Our team needed to backtrack and start over a lot. (reversed) 4. We accomplished the task smoothly and efficiently.
5. There was much confusion about how we would accomplish the task. (reversed)
Boundary spanning
Five-point likert scale: 1 “not at all”, 2 “very little”, 3 “somewhat”, 4 “to a big extent” 5 “to a very great extent”.
“Please rate the following statements concerning the extent to which your team engages in actions and interactions with other teams inside the organization:”
1. Resolve problems with external groups. 2. Coordinate activities with external groups.
3. Procure things which the team needs from other groups or individuals in the company. 4. Negotiate with others for delivery deadlines.
5. Review ideas and processes with outsiders.
Within team interdependence
Five-point likert scale: 1 “strongly disagree”, 2 “disagree”, 3 “neither agree nor disagree”, 4 “agree”, 5 “strongly agree”
“Please rate the following statements concerning how you are dependent on other members of your team:”
45 2. Jobs performed by team members are related to one another.
3. For the team to perform well members must communicate well with each other. 4. To achieve high performance it is important that team members work with each other.
Between team interdependence
Five-point likert scale: 1 “strongly disagree”, 2 “disagree”, 3 “neither agree nor disagree”, 4 “agree”, 5 “strongly agree”
“Please rate the following statements concerning how you are dependent on members of other teams:”
1. To perform well, we must frequently coordinate efforts with members from other teams. 2. For the team to perform well, members must communicate well with other teams.
