University of Groningen Master Thesis MSc HRM
14/June/2020
Xavier Madurell Gómez S3733025
x.madurell.gomez@student.rug.nl
1 Multiple Team Membership and Individual performance: Effect of Stress, Unique
knowledge and Team reflexivity
Abstract
Modern organizations are increasingly adopting multiple team membership (MTM) in order to efficiently cope with fast-paced environments. This research examines the
relationship between MTM, individual performance, unique knowledge and stress. Scholars have identified both positive and negative outcomes from the use of multi-teaming in organizations, yet the direct link that these factors have in the overall job performance have remained unclear. I posit that MTM leads to increased individual performance when mediated by unique knowledge and to decreased individual performance when the relationship is mediated by stress, and that the mediating role of these factors is contingent on the level of team reflexivity. I tested my model using data from a wide variety of employees from the Prolific Academic research tool. My results indicate that, while unique knowledge and stress are associated with, respectively, increased and decreased individual performance, these factors do not mediate the MTM-individual performance relationship. Moreover, the findings of this paper suggest that teams that perform high reflexivity can expect an effect of the MTM on the employees’ individual performance when this relationship is mediated by stress. This paper extends previous research in the field, which has focused predominantly on team level performance, provides potential directions for future research and gives interesting insights to practitioners to understand the complexity of using multi-team structures in organizations.
2 INTRODUCTION
Multiple team membership (MTM), a form of work organization characterized by concurrent members of at least two teams for a given period of time (O’Leary, Mortensen & Woolley, 2011a), is common in today’s firms due to its importance in dynamic environments. Recent studies indicate that between 81% and 95% of employees worldwide actively serve on multiple teams simultaneously (Smith, Kirkman, Chen & Lemoine, 2018). This is in line with research in the field suggesting the increasing use of MTM within a broad range of countries and occupations (Mortensen & Gardner, 2017; Mortensen, Woolley & O'Leary, 2007).
Contemporary globalized world has brought several advancements in the business context and modern organizations compete within high levels of constant change and with the permanent sought of efficiency. These firms have realized that facilitating teamwork in multiple contexts within the organization is crucial to better respond to the challenges of dynamic and complex environments (Bertolotti, Mattarelli, Mortensen, O'leary & Incerti, 2013). Modern firms are thus convinced that working with flexible teams will contribute to higher levels of efficiency and thus to a better individual and organizational performance.
3 expect greater learning and career advancement. This, in turn, should positively affect her or his individual performance. On the other hand, multi-teaming can also impose challenges for team members such as coordination, time allocation, divided attention and attention switching (Perlow, 1999; Leroy, 2009; Bertolotti, Mattarelli, Vignoli & Macrì, 2015), as well as it can increase the employees’ perceived job demands and stress experiences (Pluut, Flestea & Curseu, 2014). In other words, MTM may also cause stress to the individual members of the teams when dealing with the different work tasks. Consequently, the individual performance of these employees should decrease. Research, thus, indicates a variety of conflicting effects for MTM in individual employees and their performance.
I propose that team reflexivity, or “the extent to which teams collectively reflect upon and adapt their working methods and functioning” (Schippers, West & Dawson, 2015, p:769), will moderate the effects on stress and unique knowledge, such that the positive effects of MTM are stimulated. Conscious reflection regarding work processes may facilitate the
realization of certain knowledge and practices learned due to MTM settings, hence reinforcing the aforementioned unique knowledge effect. In addition, the same in-depth analysis in stress-related contexts may help individual employees to overcome the psychological strain derived from MTM. While scholars have studied the concept of reflexivity associated with teams, to my knowledge no research has been done regarding reflexivity in an MTM context.
4 My research extends previous examination of the relationship between multi-team membership and job performance. Particularly, much of this research has adopted a team level lens, showing for instance that members' involvement in multi-teams may affect a focal team’s performance outcomes (e.g., Bertolotti et al., 2015; Cummings & Haas, 2012; Chan, 2014; Cronin & Weingart, 2007; Perlow, 1999; Leroy, 2009). A greater perspective and understanding of MTM’s role for an employee’s overall job performance seems therefore relevant in the field (Van de Brake, Walter, Rink, Essens, & Van der Vegt, 2018), given the scant research on the individual behavioral consequences of MTM (Van de Brake et al., 2019). Moreover, while unique knowledge and stress have been cited in the MTM literature, to date no previous research has studied their mediating influence between MTM and
individual performance. Pluut et al. (2014) and Van der Brake et al. (2018) have recently acknowledged this particular gap and have called for greater research on the contingency factors associated with the individual-level effects of MTM. By providing a closer examination of these factors, my research contributes to a better understanding of the
underlying conditions for an increased individual performance in MTM contexts. Therefore, I provide scholars with a more detailed framing in an increasing demanding matter within the organizational literature. In addition, this research aims to help organizations and its leaders who seek efficient ways to organize their workforce. As firms are increasingly using multi-teams in diverse contexts, it remains important to provide managers with more and more detailed inputs regarding the factors that influence the relationship between MTM and individual performance. Only with a clearer view of the actual processes underlying this relationship, managers will be able to use MTM in an efficient and less harmful –decreased individuals’ stress levels- way.
5 The ultimate goal of businesses is maximizing value. In order to do so, organizations are constantly searching for work process efficiency. One common form of structuring the workforce is setting different teams, which as noted before is an increasing pattern that ultimately leads to employees involved in multi-teaming (i.e. being part of different teams at the same time). This multi-team workforce structure has been particularly important in knowledge-intensive jobs (Bertolotti et al., 2015; Van der Brake et al., 2018) and in organizations that aim at better leverage the talent of their employees (Smith et al., 2018). Multiple team membership (MTM) therefore demands from professionals the willingness to switch both between tasks and diverse team contexts such as different members, locations, routines and identities (O’Leary et al., 2011a). Overall, MTM appears to be an on-demand organizational structure for a majority of businesses that seek greater flexibility throughout all the aspects of the firm.
The main underlying notions behind this form of organization are social network theories (Cross & Parker, 2004; Sparrowe et al., 2001; Chung & Jackson, 2013), which in essence regard the relevance of informal social interactions among organizational members for exchanging meaningful work-related experiences and practices. Social networks, which may include people within the team -i.e. internal network- and outside the team -i.e. external networks- (Chung & Jackson, 2013), refer to the social interactions in which the members of work teamsalso seek to maintain relationships with those situated in the broader social context (Oh et al., 2004). Because of the prevalent use of teams, predominantly in knowledge-intensive organizations, scholars and practitioners have shown interest in exploring the predictors of performance at different levels, namely individual, team and organizational.
6 (2011a, 2011b) draw a theoretical model addressed to uncover the curvilinearity of MTM’s costs and benefits from the individual and team perspective. According to their model, individual productivity and individual learning are related to the number of MTM and to the variety of teams, respectively, at a decreasing rate. This study is an important contribution to the MTM literature, as it was the first that stressed a non-linear relationship between multi-team structures and the individual and multi-team outcomes. Another relevant contribution in the individual-MTM research is the qualitative investigation of Mortensen and colleagues (2007). In several semi-structured interviews conducted to the employees of a research and
development center, together with a survey administered to 400 former and current MBA students – 88% of which worked in MTM settings, the authors underpinned the most important features -i.e. challenges, benefits and enabling conditions- of MTM from an individual, team and organizational view. From an individual lens, they found that multi-teamwork provides members with opportunities to shape their careers by the sharing of projects and expertise. In short, working concurrently in multiple teams creates environments that, by facilitating expertise and knowledge sharing, contributes to career advancement.
7 The researchers used time-lagged data from a large applied-research company that is mainly structured through MTM settings.
Similarly, literature underpinned the relevance of transactive memory systems (TMS), defined as the process by which individuals from a group store, retrieve and structure
information (Wegner, 1987), in the dynamics of groups. Since TMS is a team cognitive process, it facilitates the combination and distribution of individuals’ knowledge and expertise (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). This theory is in line with the knowledge acquisition theories (Cummings, 2004; Hansen, 1999; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Zellmer-Bruhn, 2003), which in essence regard the flow of know-how and feedback within and across groups.
Some researchers (Furukawa, 2016; Maynard, Mathieu, Rapp, & Gilson, 2012) have therefore focused on the role that transactive memory systems play in teams and multi-projects environments. Furukawa (2016) studied the work processes of critical problem-solving project groups in a software support company. The results of his investigation suggested that MTM is likely to encourage the diffusion of best practices and learning.
Maynard and colleagues (2012) showed that TMS, together with team’s preparation activities, mediated the relationship that exists between the time that team members allocated to the focal team and team effectiveness (Margolis, 2019).
On the basis of the preceding models and discussed research, I propose that MTM enhances positive effects on the individual performance of the members of the teams. This relationship is explained by the unique knowledge, or transactive memory systems, gained through MTM across team processes. Therefore, I suggest the following propositions:
Proposition 1a: MTM leads to increased individual performance.
8 However, as noted previously, multi-teaming can also entail negative outcomes for the individuals. As the effects of MTM on individuals are varied, the relationship between multi-teams and performance remains complex and not limited to a mere positive association. The underlying theories that explain the negative individual outcomes of multi-team structures are the conservation of resources (Hobfoll, 1988, 1989) and the role strain or scarcity (Goode, 1960) models. In essence, the former theory states that a change of the employees’ working conditions leads to possible resource losses. These resources are key components that define how individuals may assess and cope with events perceived as stressful (Buchwald & Schwarzer, 2010). Similarly, the latter perspective argues that employees’ well-being is negatively affected due to the role-switching occurred when they engage in multiple roles. This, in turn, may lead to role strain due to conflicting expectations or an overburden of demands. Accordingly, both theories describe the negative impact that concurrent team structures can have on the employees’ well-being, which may ultimately affect their overall individual performance in the organization.
Previous studies that have focused on the team’s outcomes showed that individuals’ stress develops from team-related tasks and demands, as well as the characteristics and behaviors of other team members (Akgun, Byrne, Lynn & Keskin, 2007). Similarly, this can occur through the variety in team membership, which intensifies the level of complexity of the information that team’s members must manage (Cronin & Weingart, 2007).
9 organizational structures. The results showed that multi-teams settings is ultimately perceived as a job demand and, hence, as a job strain (i.e. interrole conflict, communication and
coordination costs). In their explorative study, Zika-Viktorsson and colleagues (2006) analyzed the psychological effects that emerge from work in multi-projects. The researchers conducted an online questionnaire to the project co-workers of several Sweden leading companies from a wide range of industries. Their findings showed that perceived project overload was explained by four factors - i.e. the lack of opportunities for recuperation,
inadequate routines, scarcity of time resources and the large number of simultaneous projects- and that there exist associations between high level of project overload, high levels of
psychological stress reactions, decreased competence development and deviations from time schedules. In a similar direction, O’Leary and colleagues’ (2011a, 2011b) theoretical model – discussed previously- also stressed the likely job performance’s decrease given by the
considerable demands of MTM upon employees. This effect can be explained by the constant switching within a broad variety of sets such as tasks, team contexts, roles and technologies. Finally, the studies by Van de Brake et al. (2019) showed that MTM increases perceived role ambiguity for employees with relatively low organizational tenure. This perception lead in turn to decreased job performance and higher absenteeism.
Building on these theoretical models and previous literature, I expect that MTM also leads to negative effects on the job performance of the individual members of the teams. Hence, I suggest the following propositions:
Proposition 2a: MTM leads to negative individual performance.
10 Notably, these main effects are contradictory, and may lead to sometimes not finding any effects (i.e. stress may cancel out the unique knowledge benefits mentioned previously). Since a simple main effect cannot be hypothesized, I used propositions to describe the two opposing effects. As discussed further in this paper, the effect of a moderator could solve this. This contradiction serves as an example of the complex relationship that MTM has with effectiveness and success, mentioned by Margolis (2019) in her integrative review.
Examining both relationships and the possible factors that play an influencing or mediating role is important to uncover the related underlying processes. Accordingly, the positive and negative outcomes of MTM must be managed cautiously to ensure its potential benefits (O’Leary et al., 2011).
The moderating role of Team Reflexivity
Reflexivity at the team level is defined as the conscious analysis of team functioning and the further adaptation to contextual circumstances (West, 1996). The notion behind this concept is that the environment that surrounds teams is usually changing and therefore appropriate assessment is needed (Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2006). Team reflexivity allows this evaluation by making teams more aware of potential internal and external issues. Therefore, different levels of team reflexivity may influence the outcome of both the team as a whole and its individual members. This assumption entails that in order to increase the positive effects and decrease the negative consequences of MTM, teams could follow a reflecting approach.
Several studies have examined the relationship of team reflexivity with a variety of team outcomes, such as product success (Dayan & Basarir, 2010; Lee, 2008), team
functioning (van Ginkel et al., 2009) and team effectiveness (Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2006). Dayan and Basarir (2010) examined the effect of team reflection on NPD -i.e. new
11 related to team reflexivity, such as TMS, goal clarity and team empowerment, they found that team reflection is associated to product success when the conditions in the environment are turbulent. In a different study, Van Ginkel and colleagues (2009) conducted an experiment to assess the role of reflexivity in decision-making groups. They found that team reflection influenced the team behavior by promoting the development of task representations, especially when not all group members are aware of the importance of information elaboration. Finally, research by Hoegl and Parboteeah (2006) highlighted the positive relationship between team reflexivity and team effectiveness. These results are relevant for the team reflection literature, since it collected data from almost six hundred individuals from different software development teams and it was one of the first studies examining the
existing role of reflexivity in highly-competitive environments.
Building on the theoretical model and research discussed above, I expect that team reflexivity influences the two aforementioned effects of MTM, namely unique knowledge and stress. On the one hand, group reflexivity may increase the acquisition and sharing of new, valuable knowledge. On the other hand, reflexivity at the team level may contribute to a better management of the associated levels of individuals’ stress occurred within multi-teaming environments. This because reflexivity aids teams develop new methods and understanding in order to appropriately respond to emerging conditions (Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2006). This leads to the following hypotheses:
H3a: Team reflexivity positively moderates the MTM-unique knowledge relationship.
H3b: Team reflexivity negatively moderates the MTM-stress relationship.
Hence, I also expect that the mediating role of stress and unique knowledge is
12 individual performance of multi-teams members will be accordingly affected. The model of this research will therefore depict a moderated mediation model (see Figure 1), that is to say the level of team reflexivity will influence the mediating role of unique knowledge and stress on individual performance.
Figure 1: Conceptual model
METHODOLOGY
Participants
The final sample of my study contained 349 employees, after the exclusion of 1 participant due to the lack of data. 61.30% of the participants were female. The mean age was (M = 40.34, S.D. = 10.90).
All participants were currently employed. Self-employed participants were excluded as this would likely mean they are in a ‘one-person’ business where MTM is not possible. Regarding relevant job information about the participants, 7.4% of the employees had between 0 and 1 year of organizational tenure, 35.8% had between 1 and 5 years, and 56.7% had more than 5 years of organizational tenure. 10.9% of the total of employees have between 0 and 1 year of experience in MTM within their current organization. 34.7% of the employees
13 were a team leader in their focal team. The mean number of MTM was (M= 3.38, S.D. = 1.63).
Procedure
In order to test the propositions and the hypotheses, I used an online questionnaire handled through the Qualtrics tool provided by the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Participants were contacted through Prolific Academic, which allowed to contact employees of different companies throughout the globe. In this questionnaire I asked to the participants several questions containing statements regarding their MTM, unique knowledge, stress and team reflexivity. I used English as the language of the survey.
Measures
Multiple Team Membership. I measured multiple team membership as the number of concurrent team memberships held by each individual including their focal team (i.e. main team that the participant performed the majority of its tasks in), following O’Leary et al. (2011a, 2011b) and Cumming and Haas (2012). Respondents answered from 1 (“Not involved in multiple teams”) to “More than 7”. I further re-coded the answers for this measure in order to differentiate between individuals that do not hold multiple team membership and
individuals that hold multiple team membership.
Unique knowledge. I measured unique knowledge with six items (adapted from Faraj & Sproull, 2000). Examples items are: “I know what task-related skills and knowledge other possess”, “I know who on the organization has specialized skills and knowledge that may be relevant to my work” and “More knowledgeable employees freely provide me with hard-to-find knowledge or specialized skills”. Items were rated on a scale from 1 (“Strongly
14 Stress. I measured stress with a six-item measure (Fuller, Stanton, Fisher, Spitzmuller, Russell & Smith, 2003). Participants answered in a scale from 1 (“Not at all”) to 9
(“Definitely”) to the following statement: “Indicate how much each word or phrase describes how you, in general, experience your job”. Examples items are: “Relaxed”, “Comfortable”, “Pushed”. Importantly, I re-coded the answers of some of the items in order to maintain a sense of logic. The scale showed strong internal reliability (α = .890).
Team reflexivity. I measured team reflexivity with a five-item measure (de Jong & Elfring, 2010). Example items are: “In this team we often discuss the methods used to get the job done” and “In this team we modify our objectives in light of changing circumstances.” Items were rate on a scale from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly agree”). The scale showed moderate internal reliability (α = .815).
Individual performance. I measured individual performance with six items (adapted from Seibert, Silver & Randolph, 2004). Given the methodology followed and hence the difficulty of assessing the performance of each individual by their supervisors, I used a self-evaluation approach for this measure. Participants were therefore asked to answer items regarding their own individual performance (i.e. “How would your direct supervisor rate you at the end of the current year”). Example items are: “Demonstrates a solid technical
understanding in his/her field and effectively applies technical skills and abilities to a variety of work situations”, “Effectively uses tools to improve productivity” and “Meets deadlines”. Items were rate on a scale from 1 (“Almost never demonstrates this aspect of performance”) to 6 (“Almost always demonstrates this aspect of performance”). The scale showed strong internal reliability (α = .873).
15 experience in multiple team settings within the current organization of each individual), organizational tenure and working time (i.e. weekly number of hours worked by each participant) as possible covariates in order to avoid misinterpretation of the data. As my model includes data from a wide range of professionals, it remained important to account for the variety of team membership (O’Leary et al., 2011a).
Specifically, I controlled for the team size (Reagans & Zuckerman 2001) to identify the number of employees belonging to the focal team. As participants also varied in terms of organizational and MTM tenure, I therefore included these measures as covariates in my study (Bertolotti et al., 2015). Finally, I controlled for the individuals’ working time (Van de Brake et al., 2018, 2019) because this variable can influence the overall individual behavior and availability of employees that are part of multi-team settings. Importantly, I reran the analysis of my propositions and hypotheses without the control variables. The results remained virtually identical, hence supporting the robustness of the findings of this paper.
Data analysis
I further analyzed the data gained through the questionnaires with help of the statistical program SPSS, version 26. In addition, I used models 4 and 7 of the SPSS extension ‘Process’ by Andrew Hayes in order to investigate if there is a moderated mediation effect as depicted in figure 1.
RESULTS
16 Preliminary analysis
Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and intercorrlations for all study variables. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Gender 1.61 .49 - 2. Team Size 9.10 15.39 .01 -3. Team Leader 1.65 .48 .16** -.06 - 4. MTM Tenure 3.08 1.64 -.09 -.02 -.21** - 5. Organizational Tenure 3.29 .96 -.08 .14* -.17** .34** - 6. Working time 3.62 1.10 -.32** .05 -.28** .17** .01 -7. MTM .65 .48 -.10 -.06 -.20** .63** -.04 .23** -8. Team reflexivity 4.05 .71 .08 .04 -.10 .15** -.04 .11* .20** - 9. Unique knowledge 4.07 .57 -.00 .07 -.12* .14** .03 .12* .13* .54** -10. Stress 5.40 1.60 .05 .06 -.01 -.04 -.03 .07 -.08 -.16** -.23** - 11. Individual performance 5.04 .66 .08 .11* -.10 .08 -.01 .12* .09 .30** .46** -.19**
17 As Table 1 shows, MTM tenure and working time are both covariates that indicated significant correlation with some of the variables of my model, such as MTM, team
reflexivity and unique knowledge. Moreover, individual performance was significantly but weakly correlated to team size and working time. Conversely, stress was not significantly correlated with any of the control variables discussed in this paper.
Main analysis
To test proposition 1a and 1b, i.e. MTM is associated with increased individual performance and this relationship is mediated by unique knowledge, respectively, I conducted a multiple regression analysis using Model 4 of the process macro by Hayes (2013). In this model, the 95% confidence interval of the indirect effects was obtained with 5,000 bootstrap samples (Hayes, 2013). The results consist of the association between multiple team membership and individual performance regardless and through unique knowledge. First, analysis revealed a non-significant relationshipbetween MTM and individual performance (B= .04, SE = .10, p = .66). Hence, proposition 1a is not confirmed. Second, results showed a non-significant effect of MTM on unique knowledge (B= .04, SE = .09, p = .67). Lastly, analysis indicated that the mediator, unique
18 To test proposition 2a and 2b, i.e. MTM is negatively associated with individual performance and this relationship is mediated by stress, respectively, I conducted a multiple regression analysis using the model 4 of the process macro byHayes (2013). As in the previous propositions, in this model the 95% confidence interval of the indirect effects was obtained with 5,000 bootstrap samples (Hayes, 2013).The results describe the association between multiple team membership and individual performance, the effect of multiple team membership on stress and the association between multiple team
membership and individual performance, through stress. First, as described previously, analysis revealed a non-significant relationshipbetween MTM and individual
performance (B= .04, SE = .10, p = .66). Proposition 2a is not confirmed. Second, results showed a negative effect of MTM on stress (B= -.44, SE = .25, p = .08). This effect is borderline significant (p<0.1). Lastly, analysis indicated that the mediator, stress, was significantly and negatively related to individual performance (B= -.08, SE = .02, p = .00). The results from the mediation analysis revealed that the indirect effect of MTM on individual performance remained non-significant (β = .02, 95% Conf. Interval: -.00 to .06) when controlling for stress, thus not suggesting mediation. This entails that the results of the mediation analysis did not support the mediating role of stress in the relation between multiple team membership and individual performance. Hence, proposition 2b is not confirmed.
In order to assess the moderated mediation model described in hypothesis 3a, i.e. team reflexivity positively moderates the relationship between MTM and unique knowledge, I conducted multiple regression analyses. The results (see Table 2) consist of the association between MTM and unique knowledge and the interaction effect of MTM and team reflexivity on unique knowledge. First, the results show that multiple team membership is not
19 interaction effect of multiple team membership and team reflexivity on unique knowledge has also no significant involvement (B= .09, SE = .08, p = .22). Lastly, analysis revealed that team reflexivity was positively associated with unique knowledge, with a significant effect (B= .44, SE = .04, p = .00). Even though the interaction effect was found not significant, I further tested the association between multiple team membership and individual performance through unique knowledge, moderated by team reflexivity in more detail. The model generated bias corrected 95% bootstrap confidence intervals for the indirect effects using 5,000 bootstrap samples.
Notably, the confidence intervals surrounding the indirect effect of unique knowledge did span zero, which indicates that no significant indirect effect has been found at low levels of team reflexivity (β = -.05, 95% Conf. Interval: -.14 to .04), as well as at moderate levels (β = -.02, 95% Conf. Interval: -.09 to .05), and at high levels (β = .01, 95% Conf. Interval: -.08 to .10). As zero is present in the confidence intervals, the results show no evidence of conditional indirect effect which is different from zero with 95% confidence interval. Therefore, the association between multiple team membership and individual performance through unique knowledge did not significantly increase when an increase in team reflexivity occurred. Consequently, hypothesis 3a is not supported.
In order to test hypothesis 3b, i.e. team reflexivity negatively moderates the
20 .13, p = .00). In order to assess the association between multiple team membership and
individual performance through stress, moderated by team reflexivity in more detail, the model generated bias corrected 95% bootstrap confidence intervals for the indirect effects using 5,000 bootstrap samples.
Notably, the confidence intervals surrounding the indirect effect of stress (see Table 3) did span zero, except for high levels of team reflexivity, which indicates that no significant indirect effect has been found at low levels (β = .00, 95% Conf. Interval: -.03 to .04) and moderate levels (β = .02, 95% Conf. Interval: -.00 to .05) of team reflexivity. Yet, analysis revealed a significant direct effect at high levels of team reflexivity (β = .03, 95% Conf. Interval: .00 to .08). Analysis also indicated that the index of moderated mediation is not significant (Index = .02, 95% Conf. Interval: -.00 to .06). Therefore, there is partial support for mediation, as results showed an increase in stress that is related to individual performance only at high levels of team reflexivity, but a non-significant index of moderated mediation. These results oppose hypothesis 3b, which suggested a negative moderated effect of team reflexivity on the multiple team membership-stress mediated relationship.
DISCUSSION
The analysis of the concepts and results discussed throughout this paper has provided some interesting findings. First, contrary to my expectations, there is no (significant)
21 Table 2. Regression analysis
Notes: N = 349. Standard errors between parentheses. † p< .10, *p < .05, ** p < .01. MTM = multiple team membership
Stress Unique knowledge
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
22 Table 3. Regression analysis
Notes: N = 349. Standard errors between parentheses. † p< .10, *p < .05, ** p < .01. MTM = multiple team membership Individual performance Model 4 Model 5 Intercept 4.59*** (.30) 2.95***(0.37) Gender .18* (.08) .16* (.07) Team size .01* (.00) .00† (.00) Team leader -.09 (.08) -.05 (.07) MTM tenure .02 (.03) .01 (.03) Organizational tenure -.03 (.04) -.03 (.04) Working time .08* (.04) .06* (.03) MTM .05 (.10) .01 (.09) Team reflexivity MTM x Team reflexivity Stress -.05* (.02) Unique Knowledge .47*** (.06) R2 .05** ∆R2
Conditional Indirect Effects
-1 SD (Team reflexivity) .00 (.02)
23
Figure 2: Interaction between MTM and team reflexivity in predicting stress.
regarding the influence role that team reflexivity has on the relationship between MTM and individual performance occurred through unique knowledge or through stress. Indeed, only at high levels of reflexivity organizations can expect an association between MTM and the performance of the employees occurred through stress.
Theoretical Implications
The present research examined the roles of MTM, unique knowledge, stress and team reflexivity for employees’ performance at the individual level. My findings add an interesting contribution to the existent literature on MTM and individual performance. First, my findings enrich previous literature (Dayan & Basarir, 2010; Lee, 2008; van Ginkel et al., 2009; Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2006) on the effects of team reflexivity, adding an individual’s level of analysis. In concrete, this paper shows that team reflexivity positively influences unique knowledge, as well as negatively influences stress. This suggests that reflexivity, or the conscious analysis of the functioning of the team and the further adaptation to contextual circumstances (West, 1996), does indeed facilitate the creation of specific, unique knowledge and the reduction of the stress levels on the individuals of the teams. Interestingly, this relationship does not completely occur – i.e. there only exists a weak effect on stress- when
24 MTM interacts with team reflexivity. This is an interesting addition to the MTM literature since it highlights the role that contextual factors at the team level – i.e. reflexivity- can play on outcomes that might be associated with MTM – i.e. unique knowledge and stress. As discussed further, additional research addressed to uncover why there exists a weak interaction effect on stress and a non-effect on unique knowledge will facilitate a greater understanding of these mechanisms.
Second, this paper extends existing literature on the effect of MTM at the individual level of analysis. Prior research that has adopted an individual lens has underpinned the potential positive (O’Leary et al., 2011a, 2011b; Matthews et al., 2012; Mortensen et al., 2007; Van de Brake et al. 2019) and negative effects (Pluut et al., 2014; Zika-Viktorsson, Sundstrom & Engwall, 2006; Van de Brake et al. 2019) that multi-team settings have on individuals and on their performance (O’Leary et al., 2011a, 2011b; Van de Brake et al., 2018; Van de Brake et al. 2019). The findings of my study illustrate that there exists a marginal negative effect of MTM on the levels of stress perceived by the employees that are part of concurrent multiple teams. My results also indicate that, when the relationship between MTM and individual performance is powered by stress, there only exists an effect at high levels of team reflexivity. These findings are interesting from a theoretical perspective due to three main points. First, the results add on previous research findings (Akgun et al., 2007; Pluut et al., 2014; Zika-Viktorsson, Sundstrom & Engwall, 2006) that also stress the
psychological negative consequences that multi-teams impose in individuals. Second, the fact that there is no influence of MTM on the individual learning and knowledge of the employees could challenge existing research on this regard (Hansen, 1999; O’Leary et al., 2011a, 2011b; Fukurawa, 2016). Third, my findings enrich the MTM literature and enhance a greater
25 results highlight the role that reflexivity at the team level can have when stress mediates the MTM-individual performance relationship. This provides scholars with insightful information regarding reflexivity as an influencing factor and, as I discuss further, future studies may benefit from replicating my model in regard to this moderating role.
Finally, my findings suggest that unique knowledge and stress are both factors that are associated with individual performance. These findings are in line with previous studies (O’Leary et al., 2011a, 2011b; Van de Brake, 2019) that hypothesized the influence that factors such as increased learning and job demands can have on employees’ individual
performance. Since scholars in the economics and business field are continuously interested in uncovering the factors and mechanisms that influence employees’ performance, my results provide researchers with more insights on that regard. Therefore, researchers can use my findings to further examine how and to what extent these factors influence the employees’ individual performance.
Practical Implications
26 The present research findings also suggest that team reflexivity can be an important actor on specific individual outcomes that occur within the work environment. More specifically, my results suggest that reflexivity at the team level facilitates the creation of individual unique knowledge and the reduction of the stress levels. In addition, reflexivity can influence the potential mediating effect that stress has in the relationship between MTM and individual performance. Organizations and team leaders should recognize the importance of this factor and try to conveniently incorporate it in the organizational work processes. The appropriate and sufficient use of this reflection process can be an efficient tool that firms can use on their own benefit on different degrees, including on the individual level.
It is also interesting, in this regard, that MTM is only marginally related to stress and it is not related to individual knowledge. This is an interesting factor that professionals in
several organizations that use multi-team settings should bear in mind when analyzing the advantages and disadvantages on structuring the workforce in multiple teams. For instance, a team leader from a knowledge-intensive firm may decide not to involve her or his team subordinates in concurrent different teams in order to avoid unnecessary increased levels of stress. The results of this paper indicate that there exists only a marginal effect of MTM on employees’ perceived stress, hence this relationship may not be as strong as commonly expected. My findings also suggest that multiple team membership does not contribute to increased individual knowledge for the individual members of the team. Therefore, managers and team leaders should not count on this particular benefit when setting multi-teams.
27 relationship and aim at developing work atmospheres that facilitates the creation of unique knowledge and the reduction of individual levels of stress. In doing so, firms may manage to conveniently shape the individual performance of their employees.
Limitations and Future Research
I acknowledge that the present research is not without limitations. First, I used a single source in order to collect the data for the examination of my model. Despite some strengths (e.g. relatively large sample, wide variety of employees, companies and sectors), the use of a single-source data might have influenced the outcomes of the study. Moreover, I collected the totality of the data from an online research tool, which might influence the respondents’ inclination to respond truthfully. The literature may benefit from further examining the present concepts by using data from employees that belong to different teams within the same company and within different companies, or by combining the use of an online research tool and data collected directly from companies.
Second, my data contained subjective (i.e. self-assessed) information about employees’ job performance. Although I used a measured adapted from previous research (Seibert, Silver and Randolph, 2004), it is possible, for instance, that employees inflated their own
evaluations, regardless of their actual individual performances. Therefore, future research might find useful using objective or supervisors’ evaluations of the performance outcomes of the employees.
28 comparison of the results when using different measures for multiple team membership would contribute to a greater understanding of the actual association effects. The literature may therefore benefit from further examination of these concepts using different measures for the multiple team membership variable.
Fourth, I also acknowledge that the current worldwide situation (i.e. Covid-19 outbreak) might have influenced the normal working situation of the respondents. Although I included a special note in the survey that asked the respondents to answer the questionnaire taking the mindset of their normal working life, it is possible that the respondents’ answers were different than those answered in a normal working. For instance, the stress levels of the
employees may be higher, or the likeliness of incurring in team reflexivity and the employees’ perception of unique knowledge may be lower for the case of employees that work from home (i.e. virtual teams).
Based on my research findings, I strongly suggest further examination regarding the role that team reflexivity and stress play on MTM and on individual performance. As discussed in the present paper, although weakly or marginally, these factors present levels of association. Scholars may benefit from further examining this relationship, for instance, by analyzing the role that team reflexivity might have between the mediating factors (e.g. stress) and the individual performance of the employees.
29 some factors might at different levels of analysis, such as for the teams or for the
organization.
Conclusion
This paper aimed at extending previous research on the MTM-literature by identifying some of the factors that mediate and moderate the relationship between multi-teams and individual performance. The study findings suggest three main points. First, unique knowledge and stress influences individual performance in a positive and negative way, respectively. Second, team reflexivity is associated, in the same direction, with individual knowledge and stress. Finally, stress only mediates the relationship between MTM and individual performance at high levels of team reflexivity. Although the results did not find support for the main propositions of my model -i.e. unique knowledge and stress mediate the relationship between multiple team membership and individual performance-, this paper provides scholars and practitioners with some insightful information regarding the complex relationship that surrounds MTM and employees’ individual performance. Hence, the findings of my study suggest that further investigation that completely or partly replicates my model may benefit the MTM literature, as well as organizational managers and team leaders that seek beneficial outcomes from structuring employees in multi-team settings. Overall, I hope this paper will spur additional investigation at both the employee and the team level, as well as will give additional relevant insights to professionals from organizations that make valuable and efficient use of MTM.
REFERENCES
30 Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team
performance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321-341. doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.321 Bertolotti, F., Mattarelli, E., Mortensen, M., Oleary, M. & Incerti, V. (2013). How Many
Teams Should We Manage at Once? The Effect of Multiple Team Membership, Collaborative Technologies, and Polychronicity on Team Performance. International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2013): Reshaping Society Through Information Systems Design. 2.
Bertolotti, F., Mattarelli, E., Vignoli, M., & Macrì, D. (2015). Exploring the relationship between multiple team membership and team performance: The role of social networks and collaborative technology. Research Policy, 44(4), 911-924. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.01.019
Buchwald, P. & Schwarzer, C. (2010). International Encyclopedia of Education. Third Edition.
Carter, S.M. and West, M.A. (1998). Reflexivity, effectiveness and mental health in BBC-TV production teams. Small Group Research, 29(5), 583–601.
Chung, Y., Jackson, S.E., 2013. The internal and external networks of knowledge-intensive teams the role of task routineness. Journal Management, 39(2), 442–468.
Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. 2007. Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32: 761– 773.
Cross, R. & Cummings, J.N., 2004. Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Academy Management Journal, 47(6), 928–937.
Cross, R., Parker, A., 2004. The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, USA.
31 Cummings, J. N., & Haas, M. R. (2012). So many teams, so little time: Time allocation
matters in geographically dispersed teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 316-341. doi:10.1002/job.777
Dayan, M. and Basarir, A. (2010), Antecedents and consequences of team reflexivity in new product development projects. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 25(1), 18-29.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 628-638
de Jong, Bart A., and Tom Elfring (2010), "How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort.", Academy of
Management Journal, 53, 535-549.
Fairbrother, K., & Warn, J. (2003). Workplace dimensions, stress and job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 8-21
Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science, 46(12), 1554-1568. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.12.1554.12072 Fuller, J., Stanton, J., Fisher, G., Spitzmuller, C., Russell, S., & Smith, P. (2003). A lengthy
look at the daily grind: Time series analysis of events, mood, stress, and satisfaction. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 1019-33.
Furukawa, C. (2016). Dynamics of a critical problem-solving project team and creativity in a multiple-project environment. Team Performance Management, 22, 92-110. doi:10.1108/TPM-04-2015-0021.
Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483–496. http://dx .doi.org/10.2307/2092933
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search‐transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing
knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82– 111.
32 Hoegl, M. and Parboteeah, K.P. (2006). Team reflexivity in innovative projects. R&D
Management, 36(2), 113-125.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1988). The ecology of stress. New York: Hemisphere.
Humphrey, S. E., Morgeson, F. P., & Mannor, M. J. (2009). Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012997
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.
Lee, L.T. (2008). The effects of team reflexivity and innovativeness on new product
development performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(4), 548-569. Leroy, S., 2009. Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when
switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavioral Human Decissions Processes 109 (2), 168–181.
Margolis, J. (2020). Multiple Team Membership: An Integrative Review. Small Group Research, 51(1), 48–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419883702
Matthews, T., Whittaker, S., Moran, T. P., Helsley, S. Y. and Tejinder, K. J. (2012). ‘Productive interrelationships between collaborative groups ease the challenges of dynamic and multi-teaming’. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 21, 371–96. Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. L. (2012). Something(s)
old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 342-365. doi:10.1002/job.1772
Mortensen, M., 2014. Constructing the team: the antecedents and effects of membership model divergence. Organizational Science, 25 (3), 909–931.
Mortensen, M., Woolley, A. W. and O’Leary, M. B. (2007). Conditions enabling effective multiple team membership. Virtuality and Virtualization. Springer, 215–28
33 O’Leary, M.B., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A.W. (2011a). 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. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.5465/amr.2009.0275
O’Leary, M. B., Woolley, A. W. and Mortensen, M. (2011b). ‘Multiteam membership in relation to multiteam systems’. In Zaccaro, S., Marks, M. and DeChurch, L. (Eds), Multi-Team Systems: An Organization Form for Dynamic and Complex Environments. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis, 141–72.
Oh, H., Chung, M., & Labianca, G. 2004. Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 860-875. Perlow, L.A., 1999. The time famine: toward a sociology of work time. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44
(1), 57–81
Pines, A., & Zaidman, N. (2014). Stress and burnout in bicultural teams in hi-tech industry. British Journal of Management, 25(4), 819-832. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12056 Pluut, H., Flestea, A. M., & Curşeu, P. L. (2014). Multiple team membership: A demand or
resource for employees? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18, 333– 348.
Reagans, R., McEvily, B., 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48 (2), 240–267.
Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E.W., 2001. Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams. Org. Sci. 12 (4), 502–517.
Schippers, M. C., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2015). Team Reflexivity and Innovation: The Moderating Role of Team Context. Journal of Management, 41(3), 769–788. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1177/0149206312441210
Schippers, M.C., Den Hartog, D.N., Koopman, P.L. and Wienk, J.A. (2003). Diversity and team outcomes: the moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group
34 Seibert, Scott E., Seth R. Silver, and W. Alan Randolph (2004), "Taking empowerment to the
next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction.", Academy of Management Journal, 47, 332-349
Smith T., Kirkman B., Chen G. & Lemoine G.J (2018). Research: When Employees Work on Multiple Teams, Good Bosses Can Have Ripple Effects. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2018/09/research-when-employees-work-on-multiple-teams-good-bosses-can-have-ripple-effects
Sparrowe, R.T., Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Kraimer, M.L., 2001. Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy Management Journal, 44 (2), 316– 325.
Urbach, T., Fay, D., & Goral, A. (2010). Extending the job design perspective on individual innovation: Exploring the effect of group reflexivity. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 1053–1064.
https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1348/096317909X479394
van de Brake, H. J., Walter, F., Rink, F. A., Essens, P. J., & van der Vegt, G. S. (2018). The dynamic relationship between multiple team membership and individual job
performance in knowledge‐intensive work. Journal of organizational behavior, 39(9), 1219-1231
van de Brake, H. J., Walter, F., Rink, F. A., Essens, P. J., & van der Vegt, G. S. (2019). Benefits and disadvantages of individuals’ multiple team membership: the moderating role of organizational tenure. Journal of Management Studies.
van Ginkel, W., Tindale, R.S. & van Knippenberg, D. (2009). Team reflexivity, development of shared task representations, and the use of distributed information in group
decision making, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13(4), 265- 280. Vedres, B., & Stark, D. (2010). Structural folds: Generative disruption in overlapping groups.
American Journal of Sociology, 115(4), 1150–1190.
35 West, M.A. (1996) Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: a conceptual integration. In
West, M A. (ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology.Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 555–579.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M.E., 2003. Interruptive events and team knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 49(4), 514–528.
