MULTIPLE TEAM MEMBERSHIP: A THEORETICAL MODEL OF ITS EFFECTS ON PRODUCTIVITY AND LEARNING FOR INDIVIDUALS AND TEAMS
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
姝 Academy of Management Review
2011, Vol. 36, No. 3, 461–478.
MULTIPLE TEAM MEMBERSHIP: A THEORETICAL
MODEL OF ITS EFFECTS ON PRODUCTIVITY AND
LEARNING FOR INDIVIDUALS AND TEAMS
MICHAEL BOYER O’LEARY
Georgetown University
MARK MORTENSEN
INSEAD
ANITA WILLIAMS WOOLLEY
Carnegie Mellon University
Organizations use multiple team membership to enhance individual and team pro-
ductivity and learning, but this structure creates competing pressures on attention
and information, which make it difficult to increase both productivity and learning.
Our model describes how the number and variety of multiple team memberships drive
different mechanisms, yielding distinct effects. We show how carefully balancing the
number and variety of team memberships can enhance both productivity and learn-
ing.
Surveys estimate that 65 to 95 percent of especially in teams (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003;
knowledge workers across a wide range of in- Singer & Edmondson, 2008).
dustries and occupations in the United States Given this tension between productivity and
and Europe are members of more than one proj- learning, understanding when and how both
ect team at a time (which we refer to as multiple can be optimized in the context of multiple team
team membership). In some companies it is com- memberships would be useful. In this article we
mon for people to be members of five, ten, or propose a model of multiple team membership
twelve or more teams at a time (Martin & Bal, and its effects on learning and productivity. The
2006; Zika-Viktorsson, Sundstrom, & Engwall, model is guided by attention and social network
2006). As noted by Milgrom and Roberts (1992), theories, which are particularly useful because
firms adopt this approach to organizing work to people have increasingly unlimited access to
leverage their resources more effectively and to information (through new technologies and rap-
promote knowledge transfer—that is, to en- idly widening networks) but limited abilities to
hance both productivity and learning. However, attend to and process that information (Borgatti,
classic work on the productivity dilemma (Aber- Mehra, Brass, & Labianca, 2009; Gallagher, 2009;
nathy, 1976) suggests that the routines put in Jackson, 2009; Ocasio, 1997). Thus, two critical
place to enhance productivity often hinder the commodities in the current, highly networked
practices that foster learning (Adler et al., 2009; economy—attention and information (Hansen &
Benner & Tushman, 2003), with learning and per- Haas, 2001; Hudson, Christensen, Kellogg, &
formance often working at cross-purposes— Erickson, 2002)—are precisely the resources that
are most central to managing multiple team
memberships. The model we propose explores
We extend our thanks to Linda Argote, Alberto Espinosa,
Richard Hackman and members of the Harvard Groups-
how multiple team membership draws heavily
Group, Sophie Leroy, Michelle Marks, Randall Peterson, Mi- on these resources and addresses two ques-
chael Pratt, Ray Reagans, Denise Rousseau, and Ruth Wage- tions: (1) How are productivity and learning af-
man; Cynthia Pickering, Eleanor Wynn, and the Intel Corp.; fected by multiple team membership? (2) How
Beth Ahern, Lisa Bender, Kerry Buckley, Jim Farris, Fred can both outcomes be enhanced simultane-
Zapp, and the MITRE Corp.; and our anonymous reviewers
for their insightful and constructive comments on earlier
ously?
versions of the manuscript. We especially acknowledge Jeff We argue that two elements of multiple team
LePine for his support throughout the revision process. membership—the number of teams individual
461
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.462 Academy of Management Review July
workers are members of and the variety of those RESEARCH ON MULTIPLE TEAM MEMBERSHIP
teams—influence productivity and learning,
As noted above, being on multiple teams is
and we propose a model that specifies these
increasingly common and occurs in a wide
influences at the individual and team levels of range of contexts. It appears to be especially
analysis. As our model shows, the more teams common in highly competitive settings charac-
people are on, holding the variety of those teams terized by pressure for both productivity and
constant, the more productivity but the less learning, such as information technology, soft-
learning there will be. However, these produc- ware development, new product development,
tivity gains do not continue unabated; they and consulting (Milgrom & Roberts, 1992; Wheel-
eventually plateau and turn negative as the wright & Clark, 1992). However, as noted by
number of team memberships continues to in- other researchers, most of the existing research
crease. Conversely, the more variety there is in on teams “has focused on intact teams without
the teams, holding the number of team member- accounting for the possibility of multi-teaming”
ships constant, the more learning but the less (Chudoba & Watson-Manheim, 2007: 67). Despite
productivity there will be. As with productivity, some scholars’ acknowledgment that multiple
these learning gains eventually plateau (but do team membership “is quite prominent these
not turn negative, since people and teams do not days,” research on it has been “scant” enough
experience “negative learning”). Furthermore, that a recent review described it as one of six
the number of teams individual workers are areas in teams research that warrants attention
members of can have a focusing effect on indi- and noted that “very little is known about its
vidual attention, leading individuals to seek out implications for teams and individuals alike”
more efficient work practices and leading teams (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008: 442).
to focus on key priorities in their work. This The need to understand the implications of mul-
focusing of attention can enhance productivity tiple team membership is heightened in knowl-
while reducing learning. However, the variety of edge-intensive environments, where attention is
teams individual workers are members of can an especially scarce resource (March & Simon,
increase the diversity of information individuals 1958); where individuals, teams, and organiza-
and teams encounter, stimulating learning, but tions strive to allocate their focus and attention
at the expense of productivity. in ways that maximize productivity and learn-
With our model we make three key contribu- ing; and where those efforts are “much ne-
tions. First, our model shows how multiple team glected issue[s]” in research (Schmidt & Dolis,
2009: 690).
membership can enhance both productivity and
Although only a handful of studies have di-
learning, but only if the countervailing effects of
rectly addressed multiple team membership,
number and variety are carefully balanced. Sec-
other research has addressed related constructs
ond, we push beyond simple “multitasking is
and processes at the individual and team levels.
bad” arguments (Rosen, 2008) by separating
At the individual level, research on multitasking
multiple team membership into its key compo-
deals with the microprocesses and cognitive im-
nent parts of number and variety and explicat- plications of an individual’s switching between
ing their distinct theoretical relationships with two tasks or of “true” multitasking, where peo-
productivity and learning. Third, we move be- ple work on two or more tasks simultaneously
yond the individual level of analysis to expli- (e.g., driving a car while talking on a cell phone
cate the mechanisms that drive its effects for or using a Blackberry while participating in a
teams. Some elements of individual productivity team meeting; Leroy, 2009). These two versions
and learning aggregate to affect team produc- of multitasking have also been described as
tivity and learning, but the mechanisms by time swapping and time sharing (Waller, 1997).
which multiple team membership drives pro- Multitasking has been studied in relation to spe-
ductivity and learning at each level are distinct. cific behaviors like communication (Reinsch,
In the sections that follow we briefly review the Turner, & Tinsley, 2008), as well as traits like
related research. Then we define key terms, polychronicity (e.g., Bluedorn, 2002), which influ-
present our model, and discuss scholarly and ences individuals’ preference for and success at
managerial implications. multitasking or interruption handling (e.g., Jett &2011 O’Leary, Mortensen, and Woolley 463
George, 2003). Multitasking research is an im- 2003), and research on “project overload” (as the
portant foundation for our own model but has name itself suggests) has focused solely on the
been conducted solely at the individual level, negative implications of individuals’ overcom-
has dealt primarily with people’s cognitive ca- mitment (Zika-Viktorsson et al., 2006). This re-
pacities, and generally has addressed switch- search rarely acknowledges or models simulta-
ing frequency and switching costs in terms of neously positive and negative effects operating
extremely small time periods— generally less through different processes.
than a minute (Altmann & Gray, 2008). Although the research summarized above is
Thus, existing research sheds little light on valuable in various ways, it does not resolve the
the team-level implications of individuals’ critical tensions associated with multiple team
working on two or more teams, and it does not membership, learning, and productivity. Resolv-
address the effects of individuals’ switching be- ing these tensions is theoretically interesting
tween or among teams. Like individual multi- because existing research does not explain how
tasking, multiple team membership leads to or why multiple team membership can yield
some task switching (by definition), but it can both positive and negative effects, nor does it
also include a much broader set of switches address why organizations adopt it despite
between team contexts (rather than between much advice to the contrary (e.g., Wheelwright &
simple tasks). Those team contexts often include Clark, 1992). We focus on the relationships with
different tasks, roles, routines, technologies, lo- productivity and learning because they are the
cations, and so forth, which make switching be- key outcomes that are in dynamic tension for
tween them both more effortful (in terms of time organizations using multiple team membership
and attention) and more potentially valuable in as an approach to structuring work. Further-
terms of learning. more, each has its strong proponents in the lit-
At the team level, the research most relevant erature on individual and organizational perfor-
to multiple team membership concerns bound- mance, some positing that “productivity is
ary spanning. This work (e.g., Joshi, Pandey, & arguably the most important measure of team
Han, 2009) shows how having members span success” (Thompson, 2008: 36-37) and others
boundaries can affect teams’ emergent states claiming that “the ability to learn and adapt is
and processes. Importantly, however, this re- critical to the performance and long-term suc-
search is framed in terms of individuals’ cross- cess of organizations” (Argote & Miron-Spektor,
boundary roles and activities regarding a single in press). Thus, we focus on productivity and
team—paying relatively little attention to the learning because they are (1) central to many of
multiple team contexts people may span. In ad- the other outcomes sought by individuals,
dition to the boundary spanning research, a few teams, and organizations; (2) critical compo-
studies address how groups divide their atten- nents of a holistic view of performance (Hack-
tion across multiple tasks (Waller, 1997), but man & Katz, 2010); (3) most vulnerable to the
they do so within the bounds of a single focal fragmentation of time and attention (Ocasio,
team. They do not address the competing de- 1997); and (4) applicable across levels of analy-
mands on team members’ time that are gener- sis. Multiple team membership may well affect
ated by their multiple team memberships. other variables as well (e.g., identity and career
In summary, while providing valuable in- progression), and we hope such effects will be
sights into processes and situations related to explored in future research.
multiple team membership, existing research
typically addresses only individual multitask-
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
ing, does not consider the distinct impact of be-
ing on more than one team, and examines only Before presenting the model, it is important
productivity or learning—not both. In addition, that we define several of the key concepts on
previous research on the effects of fragmented which it is based (team, membership, and time
attention has typically addressed either the pos- period), as well as the two dimensions of multi-
itive or negative effects of that fragmentation, ple team membership (number and variety).
but not both. For example, research on interrup- Teams are bounded sets of individuals who
tions has treated them as either harmful (e.g., work interdependently toward a shared out-
Perlow, 1999) or beneficial (e.g., Zellmer-Bruhn, come (Hackman, 2002). Individuals are members464 Academy of Management Review July of a team when they share the responsibility etc.) characterizing the teams that individuals and reward (or penalty) for the outcomes of the are members of and that a focal team overlaps team’s work and recognize each other as mem- with. We draw on Harrison and Klein’s work to bers of the team. Finally, the time period during conceptualize variety of team memberships as a which we consider team membership is context form of diversity capturing the “composition of specific. In contexts where teams are relatively differences in kind, source, or category of rele- short-lived (e.g., computer emergency response vant knowledge or experience among unit mem- teams or hospital emergency room teams), twen- bers” (2007: 1203). This type of variety is typically ty-four to forty-eight hours is a period during measured using entropy indices like Blau’s which multiple team membership and its effects (1977) or Teachman’s (1980), which gauge how could be assessed meaningfully. In contexts widely spread an entity is (i.e., evenness) across where teams are longer-lived (e.g., software de- how many different categories (i.e., richness), velopment), the relevant period might be weeks and then standardized and cumulated across or months. Thus, any empirical study of multiple the diversity variables relevant in any given team membership must closely consider the context. For example, Cummings (2004) aver- general context (Johns, 2006) and temporal struc- aged Teachman’s indices of team members’ tures (Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence, & Tush- geographic locations, functional assignments, man, 2001) of the research setting. reporting managers, and business units to mea- In addition, although people can occasionally sure variety’s relationship with knowledge shar- extend their work hours, we assume that the ing and team performance. For our purposes, an total time available for people’s work is finite. even spread across the richest number of infor- Accordingly, the time individuals dedicate to mation sources and diversity variables yields any one team must be reduced when they be- maximum variety for each individual’s portfolio come members of multiple teams. Furthermore, of teams or for any given focal team. for every additional team that someone joins, he As we describe in detail later, variety or “the or she must shift his or her attention and activity number and spread of ‘batches’ of information at least once from Team 1 to Team 2 (and some content, experience, or unique network ties individuals will choose or feel compelled to shift available across unit members . . . broaden[s] their focus back and forth more frequently). the cognitive and behavioral repertoire of the As multiple team membership has become unit” (Harrison & Klein, 2007: 1204). The “hetero- more common over recent decades, two types of geneity of new ideas, processes, and routines” theories have emerged as especially valuable that is valuable for individuals and teams for understanding the dynamics of twenty-first- comes from “other concurrent and past teams” century work. Attention-based theories high- (Zaheer & Soda, 2009: 3). There are many vari- light the increasing number of demands that ables across which one might measure variety compete for people’s attention (Hansen & Haas, of teams; in practical terms, examples of the 2001; March & Simon, 1958; Ocasio, 1997). variables affecting the relationships among va- Social network theories highlight how network- riety, productivity, and learning include (but are enabled exposure to a wider variety of informa- not limited to) members’ roles, network ties, tion affects learning and productivity (Reagans functional experience, and industry background & Zuckerman, 2001). Thus, in our model we focus and teams’ tasks, norms, locations, and technol- on the number and variety of teams as two re- ogies in use. lated but distinct dimensions, which we predict Variety of multiple team memberships is par- drive the effects of multiple team membership tially structural and partially the result of indi- on productivity and learning. The first dimen- vidual and managerial actions. Structurally, sion is the number of teams an individual is some organizations may just be more complex concurrently a member of, which would be cap- and diverse, with the potential for higher variety tured at the team level as the number of unique, of team memberships as a result. However, com- nonoverlapping “other” teams the focal team’s plex organizations can increase or decrease this members are also involved with. kind of variety, based on how they assign peo- The second dimension of multiple team mem- ple to teams. Individuals can—to varying de- bership—variety of team memberships—refers grees—increase or decrease their number of to the diversity (in tasks, technologies, locations, team memberships. Similarly, any given team
2011 O’Leary, Mortensen, and Woolley 465
or team leader can seek out members who are Before doing so, it is important to note several
able to devote more (or less) of their time to the assumptions that we make in our model. First,
team, thus decreasing the number of multiple we hold constant those constructs that could
memberships at the team level. potentially affect productivity and learning but
Conceptually, the number and variety of team that are not explicitly included in our model. For
memberships parsimoniously capture the chal- each proposition regarding number of member-
lenges and opportunities for productivity and ships, we hold variety of memberships constant
learning posed by a multiteam environment. For (and vice versa for each proposition regarding
example, at the individual level, being a mem- variety of memberships). Second, a complete
ber of more teams motivates individuals to find model of multiple team membership’s anteced-
more efficient work practices, but it can also ents and consequences is not our intent. Rather,
reduce the time and attention necessary for we hope our model captures the key elements of
learning to occur effectively. Similarly, a focal multiple team membership’s effects on produc-
team whose members are on a wider variety of tivity and learning and stimulates additional
other teams exposes the focal team to more theoretical and empirical work regarding these
unique information, which can stimulate learn- and other aspects of people’s experience work-
ing, but it also poses coordination challenges for ing in multiple teams. In the sections that follow
the team, which can reduce productivity. We we present four core propositions at the individ-
develop these relationships and our overall ual and team levels. We summarize these prop-
model in more detail below. ositions in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1
Relationships Between Multiple Team Membership Variety and Number and Productivity and
Learning at the Individual and Team Levels466 Academy of Management Review July
The Curvilinear Effects of the Number of one or more team projects. In contexts such as
Multiple Team Memberships on Productivity law and consulting, this is the percentage of
“billable hours” that individuals have in their
At the individual and team levels, productiv-
schedules. In general, organizations strive to
ity refers to the ability to create products or
keep employees actively engaged in project
services that meet the expectations of key stake-
work, minimizing everyone’s “beach time” and
holders in a given time period with a given set
maximizing everyone’s utilization. Utilization is
of human and other resources (Adler et al., 2009).
measured at the individual level (e.g., what per-
The key distinction between productivity at the
centage of time the TV crew’s camerawoman is
individual and team levels is the range of re-
actively working on a story) and, unlike turn-
sources that must be coordinated at the team around, exists at the team level only as an ag-
level (including disparate information, sched- gregation of individual team members’ utiliza-
ules, and social dynamics), introducing addi- tion. While multiple team membership may
tional complexity, which goes beyond simple affect people’s workloads, it does not exert its
aggregation effects (Steiner, 1972). At both levels influence solely by increases in workload. The-
productivity is a complex, multidimensional oretically, one could be on more teams yet have
phenomenon (including various manifestations less work (or vice versa).
of quality, quantity, time, value, etc.) and is con- Although turnaround and utilization are distinct
sidered one of the key criteria for work effective- dimensions of productivity, they are not fully in-
ness (Adler et al., 2009; Thompson, 2008). We dependent. Individuals can be very productive in
consider two of the most common dimensions of terms of turnaround on a given project without
productivity—turnaround and utilization—as being fully utilized (i.e., while still having time
they relate to multiple team membership. available to work on other team projects); how-
Turnaround captures the amount of time used ever, increases in utilization will also eventually
to produce a given quantity of goods or servic- affect turnaround (Kc & Terwiesch, 2009). As we
es—the elapsed time from the receipt of a task to describe in detail below, the number of multiple
its completion. For example, if it took a TV news team memberships affects turnaround via the de-
crew one week to produce a five-minute feature velopment of better individual and team work
story after it was assigned, the team’s turn- practices, while it affects utilization through the
around would be one week for that piece of better allocation of individuals’ time.
work. Turnaround incorporates both the actual Individual productivity. At the individual
process time (when the crew was actively work- level, we propose that the number of multiple
ing on the story) and the queue time (when the team memberships improves productivity in
feature story got set aside for a day because the terms of both utilization and turnaround time by
crew had to a cover a story about a breaking facilitating load balancing across team projects
news event). If the crew members find ways to and by focusing people on key priorities and
produce the story more efficiently, they can efficient individual work practices within each
lower their process time and, consequently, team. However, as multiple team membership
their turnaround. Reducing the influence of increases above a moderate level, queue times
other demands can reduce queue time and, con- for individual projects increase as individuals
sequently, turnaround. Another tactic would be struggle with competing demands, offsetting
to reduce quality to reduce turnaround time. some of the efficiencies initially achieved and,
However, for the purposes of our model, we hold eventually, decreasing productivity.
quality constant. Turnaround time can be mea- By enabling people to allocate their time and
sured at the individual or team level, represent- attention in ways that reduce downtime, being
ing the distinct combination of inputs at each on more teams increases the utilization aspect
level. The more process losses a team experi- of individual productivity. Workloads are inevi-
ences, the longer its turnaround time will be tably uneven, with teams’ demands on individ-
(Steiner, 1972). ual members’ time varying significantly over
Utilization captures the extent to which re- the course of those teams’ life cycles (Evans,
sources are being used as opposed to sitting Kunda, & Barley, 2004; Westenholz, 2006). As a
idle. For our purposes, it refers to the percentage result, individuals frequently face unproductive
of time an individual is actively engaged with downtime because they are waiting for hand-2011 O’Leary, Mortensen, and Woolley 467 offs from someone else or because there is a lull shown, if people expect that they will have to in a project (Yakura, 2001). Being on more teams divide their time and attention between multi- concurrently gives individuals more opportuni- ple teams, they will “develop a mode of working ties to offset the ebbs in one team’s work with faster . . . to compensate for the time they know the flows of another team’s work. The more they will lose” (2008: 110). teams individuals are on, the less likely those For example, Kc and Terwiesch (2009) found individuals are to have gaps in their schedules that splitting staff across more projects in- and the more fully “utilized” they will be. Mil- creased productivity, with the busier staff work- grom and Roberts (1992: 409) note that being on ing more efficiently. Jett and George (2003) also only one team is “directly inefficient” because of noted that being on multiple teams triggered the the “uneven time-pattern to the work.” In prac- kind of interruptions that can create a stimulat- tice, many firms strive for maximum utilization ing rhythm in individuals’ work practices, help- of their employees’ time (Adler, Nguyen, & ing their long-run performance. Thus, driven by Schwerer, 1996), and the ability to assign time in more team memberships, new, more focused small increments to multiple teams supports work practices enhance individuals’ productiv- that utilization-maximizing goal. ity. As with load balancing, we expect that work However, this positive effect on utilization practice efficiencies eventually plateau and are does not continue unabated. Other things being offset by increased queue time when the num- equal, the positive load-balancing effect of mul- ber of multiple team memberships is high. tiple team memberships on utilization tapers off As individuals take on larger numbers of over time. This is consistent with Wheelwright teams, each additional team exacerbates the and Clark’s (1992) findings of increased produc- division of people’s attention and slows their tivity when engineers began adding projects, reengagement with any one team’s work (Hopp but decreasing productivity as they continued to & Van Oyen, 2004; Huey & Wickens, 1993). Thus, do so. Similarly, in a medical context where even though multiple team membership en- projects were patients, Kc and Terwiesch (2009) hances utilization in a way that is “very attrac- found that when hospitals split staff across tive” for management, and even though it can more projects, they achieved higher utilization, lead to the development of more efficient work but while such high utilization was maintained practices, beyond a moderate level (possibly at for long periods of time, productivity increases only three teams) it introduces bottlenecks and were not sustainable and eventually dropped slows turnaround (Slomp & Molleman, 2002). off. Team productivity. At the team level, we pro- Being on an increasing number of teams cre- pose that the number of team memberships in- ates time pressure, which can lead people to creases productivity by prompting teams to develop work practices that reduce process time adopt more efficient collective work practices, and (as long as queue time is held to a mini- while it simultaneously decreases a team’s op- mum) improve overall turnaround (Kc & Ter- portunities to work collectively. In this sense, wiesch, 2009; Svenson & Maule, 1993; Waller, the mechanism by which multiple team mem- Conte, Gibson, & Carpenter, 2001). When people berships increase team productivity is analo- add second, third, fourth, or more teams to their gous to the one that increases individual pro- daily or weekly activities, it “demands that in- ductivity, but it is manifested in terms of team dividuals enact specific efforts to coordinate, members’ collective consciousness about the manage, and track those collaborations” (Gon- time pressures facing them (Waller et al., 2001) zalez & Mark, 2005: 144) and leads them to think and teams’ collective efforts to develop more more carefully about how they use the fractions efficient team practices. of their time that are available to each team Without at least some mild stress on the sys- (Karau & Kelly, 1992). Among other things, the tem, people tend to budget more generously time pressure created by more team member- than the task actually demands (Brooks, 1995), ships leads people to prioritize, sequence, and and they are less likely to find more efficient “time box” or compartmentalize their available methods of conducting their work (Huey & Wick- hours more actively (Hudson et al., 2002; Tobis & ens, 1993). Knowing that they have smaller frac- Tobis, 2002) and to be more focused when they tions of each other’s time, and knowing that the are working. As Mark, Gudith, and Klocke have coordination of that time will be challenging,
468 Academy of Management Review July
team members develop ways to accomplish and distinct dimension is the variety of those
more in less time. These practices may include teams. As we describe below, this variety has a
more focused, structured meetings, in which negative effect on productivity. In settings
team members consciously spend more time on where the number and variety of teams are pos-
task and less time on social, relational, or other itively correlated, the negative effect of member-
interactions. The pressure on team members’ ship variety may offset some or all of the pro-
schedules from being on multiple teams “can ductivity gains that arise from the initial
trigger certain activities by teams to reassess increases in the number of memberships.
[their] existing structures and enact new struc- Individual productivity. At the individual
tures” (Fuller & Dennis, 2004: 2). There is even- level, higher variety in the teams one is a mem-
tually a quality/quantity trade-off, but teams ber of means a greater amount of information
working under tighter time constraints do tend must be managed, necessitating that more of
to produce at a faster rate (Kelly & McGrath, one’s time and effort must be spent adjusting to
1985; Waller, Zellmer-Bruhn, & Giambatista, different team contexts and their associated
2002). people, tasks, technologies, roles, locations, and
Although an increasing number of team mem- so forth (DeMarco, 2002; Huey & Wickens, 1993;
berships can decrease processing time through Milgrom & Roberts, 1992). These switching costs
more efficient work practices, it can also in- reduce individual productivity by increasing
crease queue time, as competing demands on turnaround. The more different the “working
members’ time from other teams reduce the time spheres” associated with each team, the more
available for synchronous work in any focal the switches between those teams disrupt rou-
team. Because they have to divide their time tines and hurt productivity (Mark, Gonzalez, &
across multiple teams, a focal team’s members Harris, 2005). Holding the number of member-
have less than 100 percent of their time to work ships constant, the variety of memberships will
on each team, and the blocks of time they do be negatively related to individual productivity
have available are less likely to be aligned. This because of increased information load, leading
temporal misalignment means that more work to greater processing time and, consequently,
must be done asynchronously, coordinated, and turnaround. When one switches between three
then reintegrated, which increases the team’s relatively similar teams, the diversity of infor-
queue time (Postrel, 2009; Wittenbaum, mation to be managed is reduced, and switch-
Vaughan, & Stasser, 1998). Longer queue times ing has far less of an effect on productivity than
eventually offset the gains in processing time switching between three relatively different
arising from better team work practices, and, teams (Hopp & Van Oyen, 2004; Rubinstein,
thus, we expect the work-practice benefits of Meyer, & Evans, 2001). When variety is greater,
having many members with multiple team com- job scope and complexity are greater and are
mitments to yield diminishing returns for accompanied by high levels of strain, leading to
teams—increasing at a decreasing rate toward reduced productivity (LePine, Podsakoff, &
an asymptote. LePine, 2005). As we discuss later, individuals
can manage these switching costs more or less
Proposition 1: The relationship be-
effectively depending on their work practices.
tween the number of teams individu-
Team productivity. At the team level, the va-
als are members of and productivity at
riety members experience as they switch be-
the individual and team levels is cur-
tween teams results in lower productivity for the
vilinear; the positive relationship in-
focal team. This is due to the increased coordi-
creases at a decreasing rate and even-
nation costs among members, leading to longer
tually turns negative.
turnaround times. Variety in team membership
increases the complexity of the information
teams’ members must manage (Cronin & Wein-
Negative Effects of Variety of Team
gart, 2007) and the likelihood that members’
Memberships on Individual and Team
schedules will be difficult to align. In addition,
Productivity
as the variety of team memberships increases,
Moving beyond the effects of the number of teams must devote more time to managing the
teams an individual is a member of, a separate associated variance in perspectives, mental2011 O’Leary, Mortensen, and Woolley 469
models, and capabilities of team members that the variety of multiple team memberships
(Massey, Montoya-Weiss, & Hung, 2003; Zaheer generates more varied inputs and creates suf-
& Soda, 2009), which decreases productivity. ficient interpersonal connections to stimulate
learning for individuals and teams.
Proposition 2: The variety of multiple
Individual learning. At the individual level, as
team memberships is negatively re-
variety of memberships increases, people have
lated to individual and team produc-
access to more diverse inputs and, thus, more
tivity.
opportunities to learn (Mark et al., 2005). Variety
is a critical component of individual learning
(Schilling, Vidal, Ployhart, & Marangoni, 2003;
Positive Effects of Multiple Team Membership
Wiersma, 2007). Deliberate sequential variation
Variety on Individual and Team Learning
in employees’ contexts is a traditional element
Although the variety of multiple team mem- of job rotation and other personnel movement,
berships will have negative effects on produc- which scholars across several disciplines have
tivity (Proposition 2), we argue that such variety shown enhances individual learning (e.g., Or-
can enhance learning, primarily through the in- tega, 2001). Unlike traditional job rotation, mul-
creased variety of ideas and information from tiple team membership allows for concurrent
which to draw insights. Holding the number of and serendipitous variation in the information
multiple team memberships constant, exposure one has ready access to (Hudson et al., 2002), as
to a wider variety of inputs can reduce the pos- well as the opportunity for more immediate ap-
sibility of tunnel vision and raise the probability plication and integration of that new knowl-
that better ideas and approaches will be discov- edge. Firms that assign employees to only one
ered. Although multiple team membership– team at a time “might then be at a competitive
driven variety enhances learning initially, it disadvantage in the labor market” because of
does not do so ad infinitum; eventually, the the lost opportunities for learning that multiple
learning benefits plateau. We propose that this team membership affords (Milgrom & Roberts,
effect of membership variety on learning occurs 1992: 409). Contextual variety also can stimu-
at the individual and team levels, but we note late learning processes themselves, espe-
that learning at these levels is a distinct process cially when people’s multiple teams expose
(Argote & Miron-Spektor, in press), which differs them to more “cool” (Grabher, 2002) or motivat-
in three key ways. ing work (Hackman, Pearce, & Wolfe, 1978),
First, learning at each level differs with re- involving knowledge or skills that are per-
spect to content. Team learning is, by its very ceived to be more valued or desirable. Holding
nature, not solely about an increase in domain the number of teams constant, we argue that
knowledge (which would reflect aggregated multiple team membership–driven individual
individual learning); it is also about improv- learning occurs when being on multiple teams
ing processes and team “repertoires” (Wilson, increases the variety of experiences individu-
Goodman, & Cronin, 2007). Second, learning at als are exposed to.
each level differs with respect to scope. In While a moderate amount of variety can aid
contrast to learning at the individual level, in learning, several studies on analogical learning
which one person samples from a set of teams have shown that it is difficult for individuals to
and experiences and then integrates that transfer analogous solutions when contexts are
knowledge, at the team level, many individu- too different (e.g., Novick, 1988; Reeves & Weis-
als sample from many different teams. Third, berg, 1994). As a result, we expect that high
although research on learning at different lev- levels of dissimilarity across teams will eventu-
els is converging (Argote, in press), individual ally hinder learning. Thus, although we expect
and team learning differ in terms of mecha- the relationship between variety of teams and
nisms, where individuals can learn from the learning to be positive, it is likely to reach a
simple exposure to or transfer of new informa- “saturation point” (Dahlin, Weingart, & Hinds,
tion, whereas teams require shared experi- 2005; Kenis & Knoke, 2002). Beyond that point, the
ence and the development of a new set of diversity of inputs is so great and members’
behaviors or repertoires in order to learn (Ar- information so varied that the combination is
gote & Todorova, 2007). Therefore, we argue unlikely to trigger any additional learning in the470 Academy of Management Review July
team. In short, learning appears greatest when and team levels, the primary mechanisms
there is both some difference and some overlap through which learning is undermined are (1)
in members’ skills and experiences (Heimerl & the reduction in the time available to attend to
Kolisch, 2010). and integrate new information effectively and
Team learning. At the team level, the diver- (2) the effect that a greater number of teams has
sity of inputs in teams resulting from member- in focusing individual and team attention on
ship variety enhances team cognition (Hinsz, only critical, immediate tasks.
Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997) and, ultimately, Individual learning. As discussed above,
team learning (Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005; more team memberships lead individuals to pri-
Wong, 2008). Along with productivity, team oritize key tasks and to seek out efficient meth-
learning is one of the “key criteria” for team ods of task completion. Furthermore, while more
effectiveness (Thompson, 2008: 36). This link team memberships might lead individuals to
between diverse inputs and team learning has work more efficiently, they also deprive individ-
been found by many scholars in multiple con- uals of the time needed to seek out and integrate
texts (Bunderson & Boumgarden, 2010). In- new information. Time pressure that is too high
creasing membership variety means that limits people’s exploratory thoughts, behaviors,
members of the focal team are experiencing and ability to encode and retrieve knowledge
work in more different teams and can bring (Amabile & Mueller, 2008; Bailey, 1989), which is
knowledge acquired in those other teams to detrimental for learning (Jett & George, 2003;
the focal team. As Ruff notes, membership va- Perlow, 1999). In contrast, individuals working
riety promotes learning because “each team on a smaller number of teams have more time
member maintains a broad set of knowledge per team. This results in less time pressure and
and methods,” and concurrent “work in very allows individuals to leverage brief breaks be-
different projects encourages the discovery of tween projects for subconscious learning
‘latent’ opportunities and promotes the ex- (Zhong, Dijksterhuis, & Galinsky, 2008). More
change of knowledge” across different teams slack time allows individuals to experiment
(2006: 292). However, as with the individual- more actively with new approaches, to appreci-
level effects on learning, we expect a similar ate new nuances more mindfully, and to gener-
threshold point above which increasing the alize experiences from team to team (DeMarco,
variety of teams a given team overlaps with 2002).
(through its shared members) only makes in- Team learning. As the average number of
formation gained from those teams less appli- teams per member increases, each team mem-
cable to the focal team’s context and only ber has less time to dedicate to the focal team,
makes it more difficult to sustain meaningful making it more difficult for the team to integrate
connections with those teams (Kenis & Knoke, knowledge and develop shared repertoires (Wil-
2002). son et al., 2007). When teams have high schedule
constraints (e.g., their members’ schedules lack
Proposition 3: Holding the number of
contiguous blocks of time), coordinating their
team memberships constant, the vari-
efforts is more difficult (McGrath, 1991) and team
ety of teams individuals are members
members typically have less slack time for the
of is positively related to learning at
activities that foster collective learning (Haas,
the individual and team levels, with
2006). Shared information processing activities
learning increasing at a decreasing
are critical to team learning, and, as shown in
rate.
analogous situations where membership actu-
ally changes, team members’ frequent comings
and goings hinder team learning (Van der Vegt,
Negative Effects of the Number of Team
Bunderson, & Kuipers, 2010). In contrast, when
Memberships on Individual and Team
teams spend more time together, they become
Learning
more familiar with one another and are better
While increasing the variety of multiple team able to generalize team-encoded roles and rou-
memberships can improve learning, increasing tines across tasks (Lewis, Lange, & Gillis, 2005;
the number of concurrent team memberships Staats, Gino, & Pisano, 2010), which is an impor-
can undermine it. At both the team individual tant hallmark of team learning (Wilson et al.,2011 O’Leary, Mortensen, and Woolley 471
2007). Thus, because temporal constraints asso- interpersonal relationships at work (Sluss &
ciated with the number of team memberships Ashforth, 2007), and the geographic dispersion of
significantly inhibit teams’ ability to have such work (Thatcher & Zhu, 2006) may all trigger com-
real-time interaction, team learning suffers. peting identities. Multiple team membership
creates potentially competing team-level bases
Proposition 4: The number of teams
for identification, increases the number of rela-
individuals are members of is nega-
tionships people have, and appears to be corre-
tively related to learning at the indi-
lated with geographic dispersion. Thus, given
vidual and team levels.
how easy it is to trigger intergroup competition
(Tajfel, 1981), membership in multiple teams
within the same organization may be enough to
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS cause identity-related tensions and conflict
(Fiol, Pratt, & O’Connor, 2009). Because most re-
Although many (if not most) academics have search on identification has addressed organi-
personal experience with multiple team mem- zational targets (Johnson, Morgeson, Ilgen,
bership (working concurrently on multiple Meyer, & Lloyd, 2006), multiple team member-
teaching, research, and service teams), to the ship represents an important context (and
best of our knowledge, this article is the first cause) in which to understand how individuals
attempt to model the mechanisms driving its identify with multiple, alternative, work-related
effects on individuals and teams. We believe targets.
this has numerous theoretical and method- In addition, organizational and social skills,
ological implications for scholars and practi- as well as other individual characteristics re-
tioners. lated to multitasking, time allocation, and the
pursuit of multiple goals (e.g., Hecht & Allen,
2005; Schmidt & Dolis, 2009; Schmidt, Dolis, &
Scholarly Implications—Theoretical Tolli, 2009), are likely to rise in importance in
settings where individuals must navigate ten-
We believe a focus on multiple team member- sions among competing teams and priorities.
ship suggests a number of intriguing and impor- Individuals and teams are likely to adopt a va-
tant directions for future research. These include riety of practices in response to the pressures
individual-level research on identity issues and and opportunities they experience in a multi-
employee skills that are conducive to multiple team environment. The effectiveness of these
team membership, team-level research on the practices will be an important topic for future
connections to geographic distribution, cross- research, as will individuals’ ability to manage
level research on context switching and produc- multiple commitments and to say no to requests
tivity, and multilevel research on information that exceed their capacity.
transparency. While we briefly address each of At the team level, the relationship between
these in turn, we do not intend them as an ex- geographically dispersed work and multiple
haustive list but, rather, as examples of areas team membership is another area for future
for future work in this domain and an attempt to research. Accessing individual expertise is a
stimulate future research. key motivator for using multiple team mem-
At the individual level, a shift to the multi- bership as a way to structure work, since it
team perspective has strong implications for re- allows teams to leverage the time of experts
search on identity and multiple identities. Be- more efficiently by allowing them to use their
ginning with early work by Tajfel (1981), we now time on an as-needed, less-than-100-percent
have a large body of theory and research on basis. Similarly, distributed work in organiza-
social identity and categorization within organi- tions is often motivated by the desire to take
zations (see Hogg & Terry, 2000). There is also a advantage of specific expertise that is not
burgeoning body of literature on multiple and physically collocated (e.g., Boh, Ren, Kiesler, &
dual identities (e.g., Foreman & Whetten, 2002; Bussjaeger, 2007). Cummings and Haas (in
Hillman, Nicholson, & Shropshire, 2008). Poten- press) began to explore these issues, finding
tially competing spheres of one’s life (e.g., work that being on multiple teams (and having
and family; Rothbard, Phillips, & Dumas, 2005), members committed at high levels of time to472 Academy of Management Review July
the focal team) improves focal team perfor- positive effects on learning. Being more spe-
mance, except when geographic dispersion is cific about the dimensions of multiple team
high. In that case committing significant time membership (and the associated outcomes)
still helped, but being on multiple teams hurt provides a more nuanced view of the phenom-
performance—a finding consistent with enon—a view that helps explain why organi-
Lojeski, Reilly, and Dominick (2007). zations have adopted it as a way of structuring
Although we do not specifically address the work. This more nuanced view may also be
dynamics of multiple team membership at the useful in helping us understand why there is
organizational level in this article, there are in- an apparent disconnect between the individ-
teresting challenges for coordination and re- ual and team experience of multiple team
source sharing across teams that are intercon- membership and the organizational adoption
nected by membership. Work on multiteam of it. For example, organizational decisions to
systems has provided numerous insights into adopt multiple team membership may be
related issues of cross-team coordination. For driven by a managerial focus on utilization
example, Marks and colleagues (DeChurch & and flexible resource deployment, without a
Marks, 2006; Marks, DeChurch, Mathieu, Panzer, clear understanding of the implications for in-
& Alonso, 2005) have examined issues of leader- dividuals and team. Further research and the-
ship, teamwork, and coordination in environ- orizing could explore this potential relation-
ments where multiple teams work together to- ship.
ward a single ultimate goal. To date, however,
that research has largely conceptualized such
Scholarly Implications—Methodological
teams as independent with respect to member-
ship. Thus, it would help to have a better under- Enhancing our understanding of multiple
standing of how these processes unfold when team membership also provides an opportunity
teams are not only interdependent with respect for methodological innovation. Innovative mul-
to their goals but also with regard to their mem- tilevel analysis (see Klein & Kozlowski, 2000) is
bership. For example, how can organizations particularly important because of the noninde-
best coordinate the work of teams when they pendence of teams in multiple team member-
share members? How can human and technical ship contexts, and even studies not explicitly
systems support that coordination most effec- focused on multiple team membership should
tively? consider controlling for the nonindependence of
We began this article by noting that organi- teams. The interdependence in team member-
zations adopt multiple team membership as a ships may also fuel certain phenomena (e.g.,
way to organize work, despite the apparent contagion or diffusion).
problems associated with switching between Furthermore, multiple team membership
teams. When multiple team membership is not poses an interesting challenge for acquiring
managed carefully, these problems can un- accurate information regarding the amount of
doubtedly be profound. However, we believe effort individuals put into different projects, as
that a purely negative view of multiple team well as their performance on them (Meyer, Ol-
membership is shortsighted. As we have ar- sen, & Torsvik, 1996). Workers in multiteam
gued in our model, its effects are both positive environments may underreport or overreport
and negative, depending on the dimension of their hours on different projects for a variety of
multiple team membership involved (variety reasons. This can result from organization-
or number) and the outcome in question (learn- based or information systems–based limits to
ing or productivity). The specific aspect of pro- the number of hours or number of projects em-
ductivity (turnaround or utilization) also mat- ployees can report, or it can result from indi-
ters. The majority of commentary on multiple viduals’ attempts to carry over, buffer, or
team membership focuses on the number of hoard time (Yakura, 2001). In situations where
teams and the turnaround aspect of productiv- such underreporting or overreporting is likely,
ity, where the effects of number are decidedly researchers can assess individuals’ time com-
negative. However, the number of team mem- mitments using multiple methods, such as sur-
berships has positive effects on utilization, veys or time diaries of individuals and man-
just as the variety of team memberships has agers, as well official organizational time-2011 O’Leary, Mortensen, and Woolley 473
tracking systems. Triangulating among these viduals can minimize the potential delays as-
data sources will provide a more robust under- sociated with the number of team member-
standing of how people divide their time, as ships by time-boxing portions of their
well as a better sense of how actual and “of- schedule (Jalote, Palit, Kurien, & Peetham-
ficial” time use compare. Studying people on ber, 2004), by not switching midtask (Louko-
multiple teams may also be helpful from a poulos, Dismukes, & Barshi, 2009), and by not
methodological standpoint because people on switching to easier work. However, doing so is
multiple teams have a current basis for com- not simple given people’s tendency to be
parison; they do not have to reach back in their “switchy” and to shift toward easier work
memories to answer common survey questions (Payne, Duggan, & Neth, 2007). In addition,
beginning with the phrase “In comparison to scholars have found that people interrupt
other teams I have been a member of. . . .”
themselves by switching between the work of
multiple teams at least as often as they are
Managerial Implications forced to switch by external forces (Hudson et
al., 2002; Mark et al., 2005), and—when faced
Knowing how multiple team membership af-
fects individual- and team-level learning and with two challenging tasks and the belief that
productivity, individuals, team leaders, and they cannot finish both—they tend to focus on
managers can be more mindful of the implica- the work they can complete more easily
tions. The effects of multiple team member- (Schmidt & Dolis, 2009). To the extent that in-
ship are not purely structural and are subject dividuals exercise some volition and can man-
to individual agency or managerial interven- age their shifts from team to team and avoid
tion. In this sense they are akin to other types these general tendencies, they can minimize
of opportunities provided by networks— the productivity-decreasing delays that multi-
opportunities that are both “purposive” (agen- ple team memberships cause. By effectively
tic) and “positional” (Zaheer & Soda, 2009: 4), batching or sequencing their work so that they
enabling and constraining (Giddens, 1984). We make fewer switches between widely varying
believe our model identifies potential lever- teams, individuals can also ameliorate the
age points for practitioners seeking to maxi- switching costs of membership variety on pro-
mize the upside of multiple team membership ductivity.
while minimizing its downside. Some of these From a managerial perspective, the effects of
leverage points include the timing and selec- multiple team membership on team productivity
tion of switching between teams, the active and learning also will be moderated by the ac-
coordination of schedules across teams, and tive coordination of schedules across teams.
the explicit definition of roles within teams. When teams’ schedules have nonoverlapping
Individuals’ and managers’ interventions at deadlines and more temporally contiguous
these and other leverage points can make a blocks of time devoted to the team’s work such
major difference in how effectively these envi-
that members are ready to receive hand-offs
ronments operate and can potentially help ex-
from teammates and proceed with their portions
plain how some firms prosper with staff com-
of the task without a lag, the teams can reap the
mitted to two to six times more teams than
benefits of greater team member utilization and
their competitors (Milgrom & Roberts, 1992:
449). efficiencies in processing time, without the off-
Multiple team membership can lead to si- setting costs of greater queue times. Further-
multaneous multitasking and overly frequent more, aligning team member schedules pro-
task switching, but it need not involve high vides greater opportunities for team members to
levels of either if people can control their engage in the synchronous interaction neces-
schedules and work habits (Spink, Cole, & sary to share critical information, reflect on les-
Waller, 2008). The timing and selection of sons learned, and codify new routines and rep-
switches typically is a combination of individ- ertoires (Edmondson, Dillon, & Roloff, 2007;
ual, managerial, and contextual factors, with Wilson et al., 2007). Savvy managers can adopt
individuals almost always able to exert some scheduling practices (e.g., regular weekly meet-
control over their switches. For example, indi- ings at fixed times) to enable teams to learn andYou can also read
