Managing boundaries in multiteam structures:From parochialism to integrated pluralism

Multiteam structures are increasingly used to coordinate complex tasks between different groups. To realize this potential, however, the members of a multiteam structure must manage a complex set of boundary relations within, between, and beyond the various constituent teams—boundary relations that can be cooperative, competitive, or some combination of both at the same time. This multimethod study provides insight into how multiteam structures can meet this challenge. Specifically, we examined how the different organizations that utilize and support the Dutch railway system learned to manage boundaries as they transitioned from a centralized, arms-length structure to a colocated, multiteam structure for coordinating disruption responses (i.e., the Rail Operations Control Center (ROCC)). In part 1 of our study, qualitative analyses of interview, observational, and archival data suggested that learning to manage boundaries within the ROCC was not simple or linear but evolved through trial and error during various phases. Ultimately, the ROCC developed an approach we call “integrated pluralism,” establishing a dynamic balance that combines both collaborative and competitive approaches to boundary management. In this manner, the ROCC teams were able to attain integrated solutions and coordinated task accomplishment while simultaneously defending internal team operations and home organization interests. In part 2, we employed an interrupted time series analysis to demonstrate that the implementation of the ROCC resulted in significant performance improvements. Consistent with the results of part 1, we found that these improvements emerged gradually over time as teams learned to work out their boundary relations and transitioned to integrated pluralism. These findings provide new insights into how individuals and teams can work together to tackle the unique boundary management challenges presented by multiteam structures and illuminate the dynamic trial and error process by which component teams can learn to both cooperate and compete

Teamwork in Extreme Environments

Teams are relied upon in extreme and challenging environments in which there are considerable demands and failures can have severe consequences. Despite an increased interest in extreme teams, empirical research remains limited. Moreover, whilst the literature differentiates between extreme and non-extreme teams, it rarely distinguishes between different types of extreme teams. In this thesis, I argue extreme teams can be differentiated into multi-team systems (MTS) and teams in isolated, confined environments (ICE). I draw on contextual challenges present in different types of extreme environments to examine what factors support teamwork in emergency response teams (MTS) and expedition teams (ICE). In doing so, I identify methodological and analytical approaches suitable for researching extreme teams (Chapter II and V). MTS often form quickly in the response to emergencies. This creates challenges in establishing communication channels and managing conflicting objectives across inter-agency partners who may have limited experience working with one another. To address these challenges, I explored how teams communicated and coordinated in crises and if this is influenced by team member familiarity. Data were collected from immersive simulations with commanders in the emergency services and students. Mixed methods analysis showed how team processes changed across time (Chapter III) and how familiarity (Chapter IV) alleviated some of the challenges of working in MTS. In contrast to MTS, teams in ICE co-exist for pro-longed periods in hostile and remote settings. This creates challenges in maintaining team cohesion and balancing the personalities and characteristics of isolated individuals for pro-longed periods. Here, I used a diary methodology to track changes in cohesion over time and explore if fluctuations in cohesion are predicted by day-to-day events and the personality composition of teams (Chapter V). Theoretical implications for the importance of context in shaping team behaviours and practical implications for teams operating in extreme environments are provided

Identity asymmetries:An experimental investigation of social identity and information exchange in multiteam systems

Many complex organizational tasks are performed by networks of teams, or “multiteam systems.” A critical challenge in multiteam systems is how to promote information exchange across teams. In three studies, we investigate how identity “asymmetries”—differences between teams in terms of whether the team or overarching system constitutes their primary focus of identification—affect interteam information sharing and performance. In Study 1, we manipulate teams’ foci of identification (team vs. system focused) in a sample of 84 five-member teams working in one of 21 four-team multiteam systems performing a computer strategy simulation. We find that, while system-focused teams shared information equally with all teams, team-focused teams shared less information with system-focused teams than they did with other team-focused teams. Interteam information sharing positively predicted interteam performance. In Study 2, we test the assumptions underlying our theory in a vignette experiment, demonstrating that team-focused individuals adopt instrumental motives toward interteam interaction. Finally, in Study 3, we investigate the implications of system composition in terms of team identity foci by means of a simulation study based on the empirical results of Study 1. The results of the simulation yield novel propositions about the nonlinear effects of social identity in multiteam systems

Functional Leadership in Interteam Contexts: Understanding ‘What’ in the Context of Why? Where? When? and Who?

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via the DOI in this recordResearch on team leadership has primarily focused on leadership processes targeted within teams, in support of team objectives. Yet, teams are open systems that interact with other teams to achieve proximal as well as distal goals. This review clarifies that defining ‘what’ constitutes functionally effective leadership in interteam contexts requires greater precision with regard to where (within teams, across teams) and why (team goals, system goals) leadership processes are enacted, as well as greater consideration of when and among whom leadership processes arise. We begin by synthesizing findings from empirical studies published over the past 30 years that shed light on questions of what, where, why, when, and who related to interteam leadership and end by providing three overarching recommendations for how research should proceed in order to provide a more comprehensive picture of leadership in interteam contexts

Identifying Thematic Patterns of Autonomy Shifts and Team Boundary Work for Long Duration Spaceflight Multiteam Missions

As long duration exploration missions (LDEMs) become the norm for spaceflight, it is important to understand the factors that may influence how astronaut crews and ground control teams work together. Although there are numerous efforts underway to continue to push boundaries in space exploration, much of the existing work to examine teamwork is designed to primarily address intrateam issues, not considering how inter-team factors may predict team and mission performance. Given the potential future challenges and uncertainties of LDEMs, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has identified a need for risk-mitigating spaceflight multiteam system (SFMTS) interventions designed to resolve or prevent inadequate cooperation, coordination, communication, and psychosocial adaptation, both within and between component teams. This study serves to begin to break apart the specifics of how shifting inter-team autonomy is exhibited within teams (i.e., crew claiming, mission control granting) in space and what team boundary work (i.e., buffering) looks like in SFMTSs. Regarding inter-team autonomy shifts, we saw that the majority (65%) of the 100 critical incidents coded exhibited this shift. Further, most of these autonomy shifts were triggered by the space crew claiming its autonomy from Mission Control. Almost half (46%) of the critical incidents exhibited an inter-team autonomy shift triggered by “crew claiming”. Additionally, our findings focused around team boundary work showed that multiple types of team boundary work were often exhibited per critical incident. Buffering and Reinforcement were identified as the top team boundary work types, followed closely by Reinforcement and Spanning. The results show that very rarely is only one type of team-boundary work shown when there is an inter-team autonomy shift. The current team boundary work patterns found indicate the types of functional boundary work needed for inter-team autonomy shifts in complex spaceflight multiteam systems. These patterns were derived using the critical incident method and are descriptive of behaviors that could be used as the basis of team boundary and inter-team autonomy shift training for SFMTSs in LDEM. Implications of the findings from this study and future directions are further discussed

Information sharing in interteam responses to disaster

Research demonstrates that information sharing is facilitated by familiarity, and having a common understanding of problems, use of lexicon, and semantic meaning. These factors can be difficult to develop within extreme environments such as disasters as members of the multi‐agency system that responds often have limited experience of working together. Public inquiries repeatedly highlight the impact of information sharing difficulties on public safety, but limited academic research has focused on identifying concrete behaviours that facilitate interteam information sharing within such environments. This paper presents a case study of a national disaster response exercise involving 1,000 emergency responders. Data consist of structured observations, recordings of interteam meetings, and interviews with emergency responders. Results of mixed‐method analysis indicate that interteam information sharing is delayed by limited situation awareness and poor articulation. Conversely, adopting behaviours that promote common frames for understanding interteam capabilities and information requirements improves information sharing and potentially reduces cognitive effort required to process information. Findings contribute to interteam communication theory by highlighting that in complex, time‐constrained environments, having a shared understanding of responsibilities and information requirement is important for minimizing redundant deliberation and improving relevance and speed

Engineering Design Team Leadership in Undergraduate Design Teams

The objective of this research is to develop an understanding of the emergence and distribution of leadership behaviors in engineering design teams. This research was conducted with undergraduate engineering students and explored leadership behaviors within design teams in a variety of contexts. Undergraduates were selected for the study since they possessed similar education and skills as a novice engineer in industry. A mixed methods approach incorporated qualitative and quantitative techniques including interview, case study, and protocol study instruments. The use of these methods enabled the exploration of leadership in both natural and controlled environments to capitalize on the research advantages of each. Interviews were employed to understand faculty perceptions of leadership in design teams. The case study enabled the identification of leadership in a natural context without the need to control the multitude of variables in collaborative design. The protocol study provided a more focused and controlled study to identify patterns of leadership emergence and distribution of functions within a specific conceptual design activity: function modeling. The teams examined ranged from three to four-member design teams in the protocol study to ten-member teams with behavior resembling multiteam systems in the case studies. The resulting insights provide increased understanding of the emergence of leadership and the distribution of leadership functions within design teams. Interviews manifested faculty perceptions that formal structures are developed early and that informal roles emerge throughout projects, with communication skills playing an important role. Faculty perceptions on leadership covered a broad range of leadership functions including “performing task” and “consideration.” The density of leadership networks during case studies confirmed the emergence of informal leadership functions among designers and indicated variations in function distribution at sampling points. Protocol studies indicated that informal leadership was established early, and that leaders active early remained active throughout these focused sessions. A single instance of variation in protocol study team size demonstrated a structural parity in a three-member team that was not observed in four-member teams. This supports faculty perception that larger and multi-dimensional teams also provided different opportunities for leadership development. This understanding will form the basis for further research into leadership of design teams and may assist in the development of leadership interventions in engineering design teams and design education

The motivational drivers of leadership emergence in multiteam systems

Many of the most important organizational and societal challenges are beyond the capacity of single teams, working in isolation, and instead, require the collaborative efforts of Multiteam Systems (MTSs). Limiting MTS effectiveness, however, all members of these systems are not always motivated to achieve superordinate goals. This dissertation emphasizes that MTSs are often comprised of teams with unique, and sometimes competing, team priorities. In a large-scale MTS laboratory study, I consider the impact of team priorities on the networked patterns of leadership that are likely to arise across team boundaries. Using a between-team manipulation, I experimentally manipulated the degree to which component teams were induced to prioritize the superordinate goal of the system and evaluated the impact of this manipulation on the emergence of leadership claiming and granting processes across teams. Results suggest that the priorities emphasized within component teams in MTSs have significant ramifications for members’ participation in critical processes of leadership between teams. Relative to teams that did not prioritize the superordinate goal, members of these teams were more likely to reference the superordinate goal in their interteam communications and more likely to claim and be granted leadership influence by members of other teams. However, those MTS members who prioritize superordinate goal were also the most likely to grant others’ leadership attempts, potentially allowing members with conflicting priorities to unduly influence the system. Further, I uncover patterns of communication related to leadership granting and identify patterns of leadership granting related to MTS performance.Ph.D