Effects of dual identification and interteam conflict on multiteam system performance

Abstract

In this study, we investigate how multiteam system (MTS) and component team identification influence interteam conflict and MTS performance. On the basis of resource allocation theory and social identity theory, we build a model to examine dual identification and its effects in MTSs. We use a real‐time computer simulation to test our hypotheses and measure our focal constructs in three consecutive performance episodes. Using random coefficient modelling, we find that MTS identification is associated positively with MTS performance, and interteam task and relationship conflict mediate this relationship. Team identification influenced interteam conflict at the start of the study, but this influence decreased over time. Although the effect of MTS identification appears to be more prominent than the effect of team identification, our results point at the importance of investigating the identification with the MTS relative to that of the team. We discuss implications for MTS theory and practice. Practitioner points Although organizations increasingly rely on multiteam systems to accomplish work, the drivers of multiteam system performance remain understudied. This study establishes multiteam system identification as the principal determinant of interteam conflict and multiteam system performance. For multiteam system members, it is critical to engage in practices that make them quickly identify with the multiteam system.

Information sharing in interteam responses to disaster

“…Thus, many organizations have sought to invest in preparation activities (Maynard, Mathieu, Rapp, & Gilson, ) that can be beneficial for improving performance during acute phases, such as gaining work experience across a range of relevant functional domains (Cuijpers, Uitdewilligen, & Guenter, ; de Vries, Walter, van der Vegt, & Essens, ). Evidence highlights that these activities lead to quicker exchange of relevant information as members become better able to identify what to share (Schraagen et al ., ) and where knowledge resides across the team (in line with transactive memory systems; Wegner, ; Wegner et al ., ).…”

Identity Asymmetries: An Experimental Investigation of Social Identity and Information Exchange in Multiteam Systems

“…Furthermore, individuals who identify with a superordinate focus have been shown to be more attentive to and to make more use of information they obtain from members of other groups (Dokko, Kane, & Tortoriello, 2014;Kane, 2010;Kane, Argote, & Levine, 2005). On a system level, systems whose component teams share a superordinate identity focus have been found to collaborate more effectively (Cuijpers, Uitdewilligen, & Guenter, 2016) -albeit, in an interesting counterpoint, recent work found the opposite (Porck et al, 2019).…”

“…The first assumption is that what constitutes the primary identity focus varies across but not within multiteam systems. This assumption is most explicit in research where measures of social identification are aggregated to the system level (Cuijpers et al, 2016;Porck et al, 2019). Yet, members of different component teams are embedded in different local contexts and subgroups and are exposed to different localized factors that can affect the relative salience of the team versus the multiteam system identity.…”

Conflict management for co‐ordination between shift teams in Shanghai subway stations

“…To the extent that different teams assume competitive goals, they treat conflict as a win-lose contest and engage in such actions as overstating their own position to achieve their goals and demanding that other teams agree with their position (Firth et al 2015). Members from different teams may be able to develop an accurate understanding of each other's positions, but they are very reluctant to incorporate other views into their own (Cuijpers, Uitdewilligen and Guenter 2015;Marks et al 2005). Because of expectations that other teams will not reciprocate openness and concessions and may even obstruct their efforts, members from different teams are often inflexible, resulting in deadlocks or the imposing of a solution by the more powerful protagonist (de Vries et al 2016).…”

“…). Members from different teams may be able to develop an accurate understanding of each other's positions, but they are very reluctant to incorporate other views into their own (Cuijpers, Uitdewilligen and Guenter ; Marks et al. ).…”