16
Compose Teams to Assure Successful Boundary Activity
DEBORAH ANCONA AND DAVID CALDWELL
The basic principle we propose is that teams should be composed of individuals who can effectively carry out external boundary activity. The central argument is that teams need people who can bridge to the outside - people who can get resources, negotiate agreements, and know who to contact for expertise. A number of studies (cf. Ancona, 1990; Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Gladstein, 1984; Hansen, 1999; Marrone, Tesluk, and Carson, 2007; Wong, 2004) have shown that external boundary activity is a key predictor of team performance. Therefore, an important element in a team’s composition should be ensuring that such activity takes place.
This principle is very broad. In our view, it applies most directly to temporary teams or taskforces that are created for a particular purpose and then transfer their work product to others within the organization or the broader market. Typically, these teams draw on resources and information inside and outside the organization and often must gain the support of other entities within the organization if they are to be successful. The greater the complexity of the work and the higher the interdependence with other organization units, the more the team will need to engage in a complex web of external relationships to manage the coordination, knowledge transfer, and political maneuvering necessary to get its tasks accomplished (Cummings, 2004). As organizations get flatter, more global, and more cross-functional, fewer work groups can remain isolated and focus solely on internal activity and work. Thus, sensitivity to external issues is becoming increasingly important to a wide range of teams.
It is our assertion that the external activities of interdependent organization teams are related to their performance. Although relatively little research has directly addressed this issue - in part because many of our theories of group activities were developed using laboratory groups that do not have external links - the notion that groups require effective interaction with external systems has its roots in the writings of early social psychologists (cf. Homans, 1950; Lewin, 1951). This general idea was expanded throughout the 1970s and early 1980s by open systems theorists (Katz and Kahn, 1978), researchers studying boundary spanning behavior (Roberts and O’Reilly, 1979; Tushman, 1977), and writings on autonomous work groups (cf. Cummings, 1978). In addition, those studying innovation have written extensively about the transfer of technical information across boundaries (Allen, 1971, 1984; Aldrich and Herker, 1977; Katz and Tushman, 1979). In general, those results showed that in R and D teams with uncertain tasks, boundary-spanning activity was related to performance. More recently, similar results have been found for teams engaged in other types of development projects (cf. Scott, 1997).
We also assert that it is not just the frequency of external communication that is important but rather the content of that communication. Frequent communication with outsiders may be necessary for effective boundary management but it alone is not sufficient. The content and quality of interactions with outsiders will determine whether the team is able to tap into the power structure of the firm, understand and manage how the team’s outputs fit into the broader workflow of the organization, and gain the information and the expertise from outside the team’s boundaries that are necessary for success. In a study of 45 product development teams, we found that team members engaged in different activities in dealing with outside groups and it was the extent to which team members engaged in these activities that was related to team performance. We found that effectiveness in product development was most likely when team members engaged in two sets of activities: (1) those that were designed to promote the team and secure resources and (2) those that led to tighter links with other groups linked through the workflow. The frequency of communication with outsiders as such was unrelated to the performance of the teams. Interestingly, we also found that performance was negatively related to the frequency with which groups engaged in broad scanning of the environment, particularly when these activities were done late in the project (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992). Once the product idea was developed, the more successful teams cut down on broad, general communication and increased the number of exchanges aimed at acquiring specific information or coordinating distinct tasks. Less successful teams continued to seek out general information about markets and technologies.
How does one compose a team to meet external demands? Three aspects of team composition seem particularly relevant: (1) the background characteristics of individual team members, particularly the functional area to which the individuals are assigned; (2) the connections of team members to relevant networks inside and outside the organization; and (3) the configuration and nature of team members’ assignments on the team. Although background characteristics have been studied extensively in prior research, we examine their effects on external linkages as well as internal dynamics. Network connections are the ties members have to individuals outside the group. Such ties represent the potential resources team members can access. The third component, team configuration, represents the level of involvement individual members have with the team.
The first step in designing a team to meet external demands is to develop an understanding of the key resources members must acquire from other groups, learn the expectations others have for the group, and understand how the group’s product fits into broader strategic initiatives of the firm. In part, this means acquiring knowledge about the political “structure” of the organization as well as the location of information and resources that will benefit the group. Clearly, some individuals can “map” this network of information and resources better than others, and this mapping is a source of power for individuals who have it and teams that can harness it (Krackhardt, 1990).
Once the critical links between the team and outside groups have been identified, the team can be formed to create these critical connections. Three design variables can be used to manage these connections with other groups. We begin by describing the variables and then lay out some of the issues to be considered in applying these variables to team design.
Diversity in function
The first mechanism for designing a team that can effectively manage its boundaries is to select people for the team who can represent and have expertise in the functional areas that will contribute to the group’s ultimate product. Based on a thorough review of studies of groups in organizations, Williams and O’Reilly (1998) conclude that teams made up of members from a variety of functional areas perform at a higher level than teams that do not have that diversity.
For example, functionally diverse top management teams are more successful in making administrative innovations (Bantel and Jackson, 1989) and in responding to environmental shocks (Keck and Tushman, 1993) than are less diverse teams. There seem to be both an internal and external rationale for the superior performance of functionally diverse teams. Internally, such teams have a greater range of viewpoints and more information exchange within the team (Glick, Miller, and Huber, 1993) than do less diverse teams. This broader range of shared knowledge and experience should allow the group to make more creative decisions than when the group has less information at its disposal. Functionally diverse teams are also likely to have greater communication with those outside the group and have more links to external resources than less diverse groups (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992). Studies of functional diversity have focused primarily on differences in the functional assignments of team members; however, functional diversity can also be intrapersonal. That is, individuals can vary in the number of different functions in which they have worked. Some research suggests that groups made up of individuals who have experience in different functions can have the same, or even greater, advantages of functionally diverse teams (Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2002).
Members’ connections to other groups and individuals
A second tool for managing team boundaries is including individuals on the team who have connections or relationships with others outside the group. The connections or ties between individuals in organizations can vary in strength. A strong tie describes a close relationship in which the individuals spend time together, know one another well and are likely to have helped each other in the past. A weak tie is a relationship that is more superficial. Individuals know one another but do not have the level of closeness as is present when there is a strong tie (Granovetter, 1973). There are a number of things to keep in mind about ties to understand how they can affect boundary activities. First, because strong ties require more time and effort to build and maintain than weak ties, individuals can have many more weak ties than strong ties (Burt, 1992). Second, individuals can vary in the pattern of ties they have with others. Some individuals will develop a large number of weak ties but few or no strong ties. Other people may concentrate on developing a few very strong ties but not have a large range of weak ties.
Both the strong and weak ties team members have with outsiders can help the team effectively manage its boundaries but they do so in different ways (Hansen, 1999). If team members have extensive networks of weak ties throughout the organization, it is relatively easy for the team to learn about developments in other areas, resources that might be available to the team, and who might have specialized expertise that could help the team. Simply picking up the telephone and calling an acquaintance in a different part of the company can help the team acquire valuable outside information.
However, sometimes a deeper involvement by an outsider is necessary in helping the team complete its job. For example, sharing detailed information or helping a team adopt a new technology for their project often requires a substantial amount of effort by the outsider. Individuals are likely to be more willing to expend this effort to aid the team if they have a close, meaningful relationship with a team member - in other words, if there is a strong tie - than if the relationship is superficial. Thus, if extensive help is needed from some outsiders, having strong ties with those individuals can increase the chance that the team will get the help they need.
Team configuration
A third approach to composing a team that effectively manages its boundaries is through configuring the roles of team members. Most models of teams - particularly those based on laboratory research - assume equal involvement and commitment of all team members to the effort. We do not believe this assumption holds true for most teams in organizations. Composing teams with the assumption that individual members will make differential contributions to the team’s effort provides an effective option for dealing with boundary management issues.
When teams must deal with a large number of external entities or draw information from many sources there are alternatives in how the team could be composed. The team could contain members who represent all these important groups. Doing so has the potential to eliminate much of the need for boundary activity at the expense of creating a very large team. On the other hand, a smaller team would not have direct representation from all relevant groups and would therefore require greater boundary activity to guarantee success. An effective way of dealing with the need for including representation without expanding the size of the team is through configuring team member roles. That is, team members can be assigned limited roles on a team, yet still provide external information to the team or links to other groups.
There are a number of ways of doing this (Ancona and Bresman, 2007; Ancona and Caldwell, 1997). One approach is to bring experts into the team for a limited time or for a very specific aspect of the project. This allows the team to make use of critical information or expertise without having to integrate those individuals into the group. A second approach is to shift team membership over time. Individuals who have specific information or external contacts can temporarily join the team based on the boundary activities necessary at a particular time and then leave when their work is complete. A third approach is to have some members be part-time on the team. Individuals whose expertise or contacts are needed over the length of the project, but who may have other demands on their time or somewhat limited knowledge of broader project issues could serve on the team on a part-time basis. Finally, the decision-making roles of team members could be differentiated. For teams working on highly complex, interdependent projects, the need for information and coordination with other groups may be too high to be accomplished exclusively through boundary management or the part-time or part-cycle involvement of some members. Such situations may require the expansion of the team. However, as the team grows in size, difficulties in decision making and coordination may arise. One response to this is to develop a two-tiered membership made up of a relatively small number of core members - who play a major role in decision making - and a larger number of peripheral members - who play a more limited role - but are nonetheless fully fledged team members.
Before deciding who to put on a team, it is important to identify the critical external contacts the team must rely on to be successful. In a real sense, this involves developing a “map” of the external environment, both inside and outside the organization. This map should not simply identify the direct contacts the team must have - for example, a process improvement team must coordinate with the information technology function - but also identify sources of general information that can help the team understand the issues it will face. Once a map has been developed, the tools we described can be applied.
First, the team should contain individuals from the range of functions that will be responsible for the product or process under development. In particular, if the team needs to engage in ongoing coordination around such things as specifications or schedules, including people from the affected functional areas on the team will make the coordination easier.
A second design principle is to include members on the team who have appropriate connections to others in the organization. Selecting team members based on their network connections may offer advantages over simply choosing people based on the function they are in. First, it may not always be possible to select on function given the need for individuals to have particular skills necessary for the project. Second, function may be a rough index of the person’s network and considering the team members’ connections may allow for a more precise ability to deal with specific external issues than simply selecting on the basis of function (Reagans, Zuckerman, and McEvily, 2004).
In our view, team members should collectively have a mix of strong and weak ties with other individuals. It is important to have individuals on the team who understand the knowledge and resources that may be spread out through the entire organization and even outside the organization. This implies that the team needs members who are connected to a wide range of different networks both inside and outside the organization. In other words, the team needs an extensive set of weak ties. However, it is at least as important that the team have deep connections with the groups with whom it must directly interface and work with to solve problems. This implies that the team includes members who have strong ties with other individuals who are in positions to provide resources or information to the group. Without a strong tie to a team member, an outsider may not be willing to expend effort in helping the team to meet its goals. Weak inter-unit ties help a project team search for useful knowledge in other subunits and organizations but may not facilitate the transfer of complex knowledge and large-scale assistance.
Finally, configuring individuals’ roles is a valuable tool for enhancing other decisions. Effectively applying this concept requires understanding when and how individuals will make critical contributions to the team’s work. This requires a detailed map of the environment and a clear understanding of the project. If a team needs extensive information, but only at a particular time, including individuals on the team, but in a limited way may allow the “external resources” of the team to be expanded without permanently increasing the size of the team. Individuals can be assigned to different roles on the team, whether it is by having a limited role in decision making or by serving on the team for a limited time. Team membership can also shift over time. This approach is taken by many research and development teams, which is to shift the team’s membership as the technical challenges of the project evolve.
Our central principle is that teams should be composed to maximize external boundary-spanning activity. Is this always the case? In answering this question, we think there are two things that must be considered. First, there are moderating factors that must be considered. Second, the principle must be applied appropriately.
An obvious moderating factor to our general principle is the assumption that the team members are competent to complete the task. Without competent and motivated people, no matter how boundaries are managed, the team is not likely to be successful. Making staffing decisions exclusively on the ability to bridge boundaries is likely to lead to failure. Drawing from a set of in-depth case studies, Ericksen and Dyer (2004) report that the leaders of low performing development teams selected team members primarily on “political” attributes such as the ability to represent the team to various stakeholders rather than on competencies and skills. In contrast, leaders of high performing teams consider skill and motivation as well as an ability to manage external boundaries.
A second important moderating factor is the nature of the group’s task. Consider four types of team tasks that vary in the complexity of both the external or boundary activities and the internal or cooperative activities they must accomplish to be successful (see Figure 16.1). Along one axis are internal coordination demands that can be categorized as high or low. High demands require that team members interact frequently to exchange information and coordinate work while low demands do not require such interaction. Along the other axis are external coordination and political demands that can also be high or low. High demands require that teams interact extensively with people external to the team to access information, coordinate work, and acquire resources and support. Low demands do not require this depth or complexity of external interaction.
FIGURE 16.1 Critical processes for team performance*
* Based on a model found in Ancona and Nadler (1989).
Increasingly, as organizations become flatter and more flexible, as work becomes more complex, and knowledge workers take on complex tasks in teams, more teams will be found in cells 3 and 4, where external demands are higher than in the past. It is for these types of teams that our principle holds. Cell 1 is hardly even a team, but rather more of a set of people who have some aggregated output that is divorced from others in the organization. Cell 2 could represent teams that are configured to brainstorm creative ideas or solve a very circumscribed problem. Here all the necessary information resides in the team and there is little need to have others implement the team’s ideas. In each of these two cases, external interactions are minimal and our principle would not apply. Instead, the team would need to be designed with internal demands being dominant. The focus would be to find the optimal number of people who have appropriate information and skills and the motivation to work together (cf. Campion, Medsker, and Higgs, 1993).
In contrast, cell 3 teams need to focus almost exclusively on external boundary management while cell 4 teams need to carry out multiprocess management - internal work management, relationship management, and external boundary management. Our principle holds for cell 3 while cell 4 requires that both internal and external demands be considered. In our view, more and more teams are moving toward cell 4 because organizations are increasingly using teams to replace formal structures and systems. Because of this, we believe that selecting team members on the basis of their abilities to bridge to outsiders while still being able to share information, handle conflict, and coordinate work with other team members will grow in importance.
The second issue has to do with applying these ideas appropriately. While the matrix presented above presents teams as having a single task, most teams have tasks that change over time so teams may move from one cell to another over their lives. For example, product development teams move from: (a) exploring product ideas to; (b) prototyping and exploiting technological achievements to; (c) exporting the product to others for manufacturing and marketing. Research has shown that while external boundary management is important throughout this process, it is more important for the exploration and exportation stages and less important during the prototyping and exploiting stage. At a more general level, the task demands at each stage of work need to be assessed and the team composition needs to shift accordingly. It is because of these changing task demands that team configuration is so important. It is through part-cycle membership, the use of experts, and shifting roles that shifting external demands can be met.
Although we argue that staffing a team to deal effectively with external groups is key to team success, it is important that the team be able to develop effective internal processes too. A team needs to create an identity that affords some separation from the larger organization (Yan and Louis, 1999). This may be a somewhat delicate balance. As Alderfer (1976) points out, teams that have too much boundary activity may find it hard to set and keep that “separate-ness” and to maintain the cohesion necessary to work as a team. On the other hand, a team with too much cohesion and too strong an identity may be less likely to productively engage external groups than are teams without such cohesiveness (Janis, 1982). Thus, composition needs to be based on external demands while assuring internal communication and cohesion. Designing a team to meet external demands may lead to a very heterogeneous group. This, in turn, may increase conflict among team members and make coordination problematic. Although different perspectives about the team’s task may ultimately increase performance, if these are too great or lead to conflict that is “personal” in nature, performance may suffer (Pelled, Eisenhardt, and Xin, 1999; Reagans and Zuckerman, 2001). To prevent this, it may be useful to do things to enhance the ability of the team members to work together. This can be achieved by having some level of homogeneity or similarity among team members (e.g. having people with similar tenure to facilitate communication, ensuring that there is a shared goal among team members, etc.). It may also be facilitated by introducing management practices that create identity and facilitate conflict resolution (Jehn, 1995).
The role of composition in the oil industry - alpha team
Two teams, in the same multinational integrated oil company illustrate the role of composition in managing external activities and in how the ultimate success of the projects were affected by decisions about composition.. One of the major problems faced by integrated oil companies is the depletion of reserves that can be obtained using traditional extraction techniques. Both teams were formed to address different aspects of this problem.
The alpha project team was created to develop new exploration methods for a specific geographic area. In addition, the team was to identify specific tracts in that area that the company should try to acquire because they showed the promise of large reserves.
The alpha project team consisted of 17 members from three different geographic-based organizations in the company who represented a number of departments based on different geological and geophysical disciplines. Traditionally, these discipline-based departments had worked sequentially on problems rather than as part of a team and our interviews indicated that many individuals were skeptical of this team approach. Team members were chosen for their technical expertise and were assigned to the project on a full-time basis. A group of three managers from one of the geographic organizations was created to oversee the team’s efforts.
Although there was initial skepticism from some of the team members, the group quickly developed effective processes for working together. The team held several seminars and went on field excursions together to observe the geological area they were investigating. As is true of many large teams, alpha team members worked on different parts of the task in cross-functional subgroups and used a common database to track the status of the numerous activities. There was a great deal of informal communication between team members and although they had limited experience working in teams, they soon found that combining their knowledge led to solving key problems. Team members developed strong ties with one another.
Other than bi-weekly meetings with the steering committee and informal contacts with other experts in their respective fields, the team had little external contact. In fact, team members spent so much time with one another and so little with their functional departments that others outside the team commented that the team had a tendency to isolate itself from the rest of the company. The team leader took on nearly all the external activities of the team, particularly those with management. Team members primarily confined their external activities to exchanging technical information with others.
How successful was the alpha team? The two goals of the alpha team were to develop new exploration technologies and to apply these technologies to exploration of a new field. As might be expected, based on the points we have made previously, the team was very successful in finding new and effective ways to evaluate potential hydrocarbon prospects but was not as successful in getting their ideas accepted and utilized within the organization.
In the oil industry, companies may submit competitive applications to the government to obtain a license to further explore and develop a field. Once a license is obtained there is further exploration, and potentially, the development and the construction of a site. Deciding when to bid on a site and gaining government approval requires careful analysis of the site and accurate projections of the oil that can be extracted from it using various technologies. Once technology decisions were made, the alpha team left it to the steering committee to “transfer” the conclusions of their work to top management and the other groups who were responsible for developing and submitting competitive applications. Unfortunately, the transfer was problematic and it took a very long time for the results of the team to disseminate within the organization. Because of the delays and lack of broad support, the company was never able to obtain licenses for the areas the alpha team studied and for which they developed the technology. Some good did come out of the alpha team. Once the team was disbanded and members transferred to other teams, some consulted on a similar project. On this new assignment the old alpha team members were able to bring information and contacts into the new team that allowed the alpha technology to be successfully applied. The old alpha team members filled critical boundary roles in the new project.
The role of composition in the oil industry - beta team
At about the same time the alpha team was formed, a second team, the beta team, also came into being. Like the alpha team, the beta team was created to come up with innovative ways to explore new areas. The beta team differed from the alpha team in two important ways. First, it was responsible for both developing a new exploration technology and completing a bid on a specific project. In other words, it took on the next phase of work and had to implement their findings. Second, the beta team included members from two other firms with whom a joint application would be prepared. (In the oil industry, companies often partner with one another for competitive advantage or to undertake a large bid.)
The team was composed of 15 experts from the company and one from each of the partner companies. The beta team, like the alpha team, contained members with different areas of geological expertise. Like the alpha team, team members also worked full time on the project and shared common space. The team even used a similar process to the alpha team, dividing the task and working in cross-functional subgroups. Like alpha, the beta team was able to develop innovative technical solutions to problems in exploration.
Unlike the alpha team, this one added a new member six months after its formation. This new member was a field development expert who would eventually work on the application and developing the site that was chosen. Initially, he joined project meetings as an observer but later moved on to be an active contributor. Also, unlike the alpha team, this team did not have its external links handled by a manager, rather the team made numerous presentations to top management about project organization, cross-functional teams, alliances between oil companies, and their results. Despite its co-location, the beta team was not seen by others in the organization as isolated.
The beta team was able to move quickly from technical problems to the application phase. Although the first application bid prepared by the beta team was rejected, the team continued and prepared a new application that was accepted. The beta team was ultimately held up as a role model of collaboration between functions and across company boundaries.
How did composition contribute to outcomes of the alpha and beta teams? In both cases, the teams were composed of individuals from different functional areas. Both teams were co-located and had full-time members. There were substantial differences between the teams, however. The alpha team members were selected strictly on the basis of their technical expertise. Beta team members, especially those from the other companies, were selected both for their technical skills and for their connections to important networks throughout the organizations of which they were members. The beta team also shifted its membership by bringing in a specialized expert midway through its work and assigning this individual a specialized role. Perhaps most important, the beta team did not “delegate” boundary activity to one person as did the alpha team. Successfully completing the types of projects alpha and beta were assigned frequently requires more boundary management activity than can be accomplished by one or a small group of individuals. Finally, the internal processes of the two groups were somewhat different. The alpha group worked extensively with one another, usually to the exclusion of external activities. This was not the case in the beta team.
CONCLUSION
Compared to other areas of investigation of small groups, composition has been relatively neglected despite its obvious importance. Even the research that has been done has not led to systematic conclusions. In a summary of research on composition, Moreland, Levine and Wingert note that “ . . . few researchers study group composition, and no general theory guides their work. Progress toward understanding group composition has thus been slow and sporadic” (1996, p. 11). Unfortunately, relatively little has changed in the last few years.
In our view, much of this lack of progress has come about because much of the research has been done with groups that do not have meaningful external connections. Such groups do not reflect the true nature of most organizational groups. For most groups in organizations, links with other groups and the external environment are critical for success. Information and resources must be imported if teams are to make effective decisions and the output of the group must be transferred to others. We propose that selecting group members on their ability to facilitate these boundary activities can be an important element in teams’ success.
Alderfer, C. P. (1976). Boundary relations and organizational diagnosis. In M. Meltzer and F. Wickham (eds), Humanizing Organizational Behavior (pp. 142-175). Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.
Aldrich, H. E., and Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2, 217-230.
Allen, T. J. (1971). Communications, technology transfer, and the role of the technical gatekeeper. R and D Management, 1, 14-21.
Allen, T. J. (1984). Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological information within the R and D Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 334-365.
Ancona, D., and Bresman, H. (2007). X-teams: How to Build Teams that Lead, Innovate, and Succeed. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Ancona, D. G., and Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634-665.
Ancona, D. G., and Caldwell, D. F. (1997). Rethinking team composition from the outside in. In M. E. Neale, E. A. Mannix, and D. H. Gruenfeld (eds), Research on Managing Groups and Teams 1 (pp. 21-37). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Ancona, D. G., and Nadler, D. A. (1989). Top hats and executive tales: Designing the senior team. Sloan Management Review, 31, 19-28.
Bantel, K., and Jackson, S. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107-124.
Bunderson, J. S., and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 875-893.
Burt, R. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Campion, M., Medsker, G., and Higgs, A. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-847.
Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups: structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50, 352-364.
Cummings, T. G. (1978). Self-regulating work groups: A socio-technical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 3, 624-634.
Ericksen, J., and Dyer, L. (2004). Right from the start: Exploring the effects of early team events on subsequent project team development and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 438-471.
Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
Glick, W., Miller, C., and Huber, G. (1993). The impact of upper echelon diversity on organizational performance. In G. Huber and W. Glick (eds), Organizational Change and Redesign (pp. 176-224). New York: Oxford University Press.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82-111.
Homans, G. (1950). The Human Group. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Janis, I. (1982). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascos. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-518.
Katz, D., and Kahn, R. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizing. New York, NY: Wiley.
Katz, R., and Tushman, M. (1979). Communication patterns, project performance, and task characteristics: An empirical evaluation and integration ina R and D setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 139-162.
Keck, S., and Tushman, M. (1993). Environmental and organizational context and executive team structure. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1314-1344.
Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 342-369.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. D. Cartwright (ed.). New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers.
Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., and Carson, J. B. (2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1423-1439.
Moreland, R., Levine, J., and Wingert, M. (1996). Creating the ideal group: Composition effects at work. In E. Witte and J. Davis (eds), Understanding Group Behavior: Small Group Processes and Interpersonal Relations, 2 (pp. 11-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt , K. M., and Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and productivity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1-28.
Reagans, R., and Zuckerman, E. (2001). Networks, diversity and productivity: The social capital of corporate R and D teams. Organization Science, 12, 502-517.
Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., and McEvily, B. (2004). How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 101-133.
Roberts, K., and O’Reilly, C. (1979). Some correlates of communication roles in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 42-57.
Scott, S. (1997). Social identification effects in product and process development teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14, 97-127.
Tushman, M. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 587-605.
Williams, K., and O’Reilly, C. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. Staw and R. Sutton (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, 20 (pp. 77-144). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Wong, S. S. (2004). Distal and local group learning: Performance trade-offs and tensions. Organization Science, 15, 645-656.
Yan, A., and Louis, M. R. (1999). The migration of organizational functions to the work unit level: Buffering, spanning, and bringing up boundaries. Human Relations, 52, 25-47.
The following exercises ask you to apply the concepts to a real team. The first exercise is most appropriate if you served on a “project” team. This could be at work or could be a committee you have served on at school (organizing a food drive, etc.). The second exercise is a tool for planning your next assignment. This could be a team project in a class or some project at work.
The “project” team
Think about a team that you are familiar with - perhaps a team you are now on or were on in the past. Try to identify the key external groups or individuals that could potentially help the team. For example, some groups might be able to provide information or resources to your team. Other groups or individuals might be able to help your team understand and respond to political or strategic issues within the organization. Still other groups might be responsible for either evaluating your team’s work or integrating your work into their own. For each of these stakeholders, determine whether information, resources, political alignment, or task interdependence needs to be managed. Identify a team member who will interact with each stakeholder. If there are no team members with the skills or connections to manage these activities think about whom you might recruit from outside the team, whether as a full-time or part-time member, to help manage these interactions.
Planning your next assignment
Based on reading this chapter, think about how you might approach your next team assignment. What would you need to know to “map” the environment? How would you staff the team? What do you need to consider besides the functional competencies needed to do the task?