A Study of the Developmental Mechanisms of Inter-Team Conflict Processes Within Multi-Team Systems - An Exploratory Analysis Based on a Collaborative R&D Context

Purpose

The analysis of the pivotal determinants that impact the progression of inter-team conflict processes in multi-team systems, as well as their underlying mechanisms, serves to explicate the developmental framework of said conflict processes.

Methodology

This study adopts a vantage point centered on the evolution of inter-team conflict in multi-team systems, with a specific focus on the sequential progression including "conflict latency → conflict perception → conflict management → conflict outcome → conflict feedback.

Results

By transmuting qualitative data into quantitative data through the discernment of inter-conceptual relationships' directionality and quantity, this study distills the key chain of relationships between categories. Employing the explanatory structure model, the developmental mechanism of inter-team conflict processes in multi-team systems is unveiled. Notable sources of conflict include team goal identification, team role multiplicity, inter-team relationships, and team competence. Factors that exert a significant influence on conflict management comprise inter-team conflict types, inter-team relationships, team competence, inter-team heterogeneity, team affiliation, and system goals. Reviewing the genuine motivations underlying conflict management behavior, as well as adopting a lengthier temporal perspective, emerges as a crucial consideration when analyzing the implications of conflict management on both the system and the team for evaluative purposes. Inter-team communication emerges as a pivotal influence on the efficacy of conflict management, which, in turn, is influenced by boundary managers, inter-team heterogeneity, and the inter-team interactive memory system.

Conclusion

Through an in-depth analysis of the hierarchical interrelationships among factors that influence conflicts within teams, we have established a model for the conflict development process. This model is instrumental in comprehensively understanding the dynamics of conflict evolution within teams. It serves as a reference point for formulating more precise and effective conflict management strategies. Moreover, this model not only offers practical guidance for resolving conflicts within a multi-team framework but also enhances inter-team collaboration. Therefore, it contributes significantly to achieving the objectives of the multi-team system.

New exploration of creativity: Cross-validation analysis of the factors influencing multiteam digital creativity in the transition phase

Multiteam digital creativity (MTDC) is a new domain of creativity study that fits the new developments of the digital era, thus scholars have called for exploring MTDC in the fine-graining phase. This paper responds to this call, and adopts two studies and cross-validation analysis to explore the theoretical framework of the impact factors of MTDC in the transition phase. Study 1 adopts the qualitative analysis method of rooted theory to explore a more comprehensive impact factor and to maximize the new theory's saturation. Study 2 adopts the CL-WG DEMATEL method, one analysis method of group decision-making and optimized concept lattice, which could cross-validation analyze the results of Study 1 and further determine the importance of the factors. The results of the studies indicate that the influencing factors of MTDC are multilevel, and the factors such as the organizational digital climate, team psychological empowerment, individual digital cognition and emotion, and leadership competence have greater impacts on MTDC. This indicates that the transition phase has a unique internal mechanism. This paper constructs a theoretical framework of factors influencing MTDC in the transition phase and provides new theoretical and practical references for how organizations could fully stimulate MTDC in the digital era. In addition, the cross-validated analytical method further enriches the study tools in the domain of organizational behavior.

Interprofessional Identity in Health and Social Care: Analysis and Synthesis of the Assumptions and Conceptions in the Literature

Interprofessional identity (IPI) development is considered essential in reducing incongruency and improving interprofessional collaboration. However, noticeable differences in conceptualizations are being put forward in the literature, hindering interpretation of research findings and translation into practice. Therefore, a Concept Analysis and Critical Interpretative Synthesis of empirical research articles were conducted to explore the assumptions and conceptions of IPI. Independent literature screening by two researchers led to the inclusion and extraction of 39 out of 1334 articles. Through critical analysis, higher order themes were constructed and translated to a synthesizing argument and a conceptual framework depicting what constitutes IPI (attributes), the boundary conditions (antecedents) and the outcomes (consequences) of its development. The attributes refer to both IPI's structural properties and the core beliefs indicative of an interprofessional orientation. The antecedents inform us on the importance of IPI-fitting constructivist learning environments and intergroup leadership in enabling its development. This development may lead to several consequences with regard to professional wellbeing, team effectiveness and the quintuple aim. Given the educational orientation of this study, ways for facilitating and assessing the development of IPI among learners across the professional continuum have been proposed, although empirical research is needed to further validate links and mediating and moderating variables.

Expanding the Dimensionality of Team Deviance: An Organizing Framework and Review

Although team deviance is known to detract from team functioning, extant literature largely focuses on deviance that is independently enacted and directed internally toward other members. This relatively narrow focus poses limitations to the practical application of strategies to reduce the incidence and negative impact of team deviance. We offer a four-dimensional typology that takes into account features of team deviance that are important yet undertheorized: level of coordination and target membership. We use this typology to summarize current research, highlight the narratives on team deviance that underlie each dimension, and discuss how to advance the research domain.

Exploration of Digital Creativity: Construction of the Multiteam Digital Creativity Influencing Factor Model in the Action Phase

Based on multiteam system (MTS) theory and creativity theory, this study explores the influencing factor model of multiteam digital creativity (MTDC) in the action phase through two cross-validation studies, filling a theoretical gap and responding to the research call. Study 1 is a qualitative analysis method to fully explore the relevant influencing factors and enhance the theoretical saturation. Study 2 is an optimized DEMATEL method, known as the CL-WG DEMATEL analysis method, which cross-validates the new theoretical model and measures the centrality of the influencing factors. This study finds that the influence factor model of MTDC has eight major factors and distributes in four different levels. Further analysis shows that the three influences (team digital ability, multiteam digital sharing, and organizational digital resource matching) with the highest centrality of impact on MTDC all belong to the collective level, which indicates the uniqueness of the action phase of the performance episodes. The two cross-validation studies enhance the scientific validity of the new theoretical exploration. In addition, Theoretical and practical implications of the results are presented, and future directions for research are discussed.

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.

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

Research 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.

Multiteam Systems: An Integrated Review and Comparison of Different Forms

In this review, we examine the burgeoning body of research on multiteam systems (MTSs) since the introduction of the concept in 2001. MTSs refer to networks of interdependent teams that coordinate at some level to achieve proximal and distal goals. We summarize MTS findings around three core processes and states: within- and between-team coordination processes/structures, leadership structures/processes, and cognitive and affective/motivation emergent states. Furthermore, we explore how these processes and states vary according to MTS boundary status (internal or external), component team distance (geographic, functional, cultural, and discipline), and superordinate goal type (intellectual or physical). We identify several process and state similarities across levels of these attributes, as well as highlight some important differences. We conclude with a set of propositions and future directions prompted by our review, which can serve as a guide for future MTS research.

Intergroup relational identity: Development and validation of a scale and construct

In their theory of intergroup leadership, Hogg, van Knippenberg, and Rast proposed the novel concept of intergroup relational identity. An intergroup relational identity (IRI) refers to a form of social identity that is defined in terms of the cooperative and mutually promotive relationship between subgroups. This article outlines the development of a five-item scale to measure IRI. We conducted five studies with over 1,700 participants from different countries. The unidimensional factor structure of the five-item scale replicated across studies, and the latter three studies provided evidence of construct (convergent and discriminant) and criterion-related validity. Intergroup relations are often overlooked in organizational behavior and management research. However, our results support the idea that IRI affects intergroup or inter-team cooperation and collaboration, as well as leadership effectiveness—enhanced perceptions of an IRI is a promising way to reduce conflict between subgroups within a larger collective. To date, no measure of IRI has been published. These studies present the first empirical test of and support for the newly developed IRI measure, and provide evidence demonstrating the benefit of promoting an IRI for both leadership and intergroup relations more broadly.

An integration team’s diagnosing of context, spanning boundaries and creating psychological safety within a multiteam system

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to explore how integration teams can build trusting relationships in component teams to enhance their leadership capability within multiteam systems to achieve common superordinate goals. The study investigates how an integration team diagnoses contextual dynamics to enhance understanding of goals in component teams and spans boundaries to create trusting relationships.

Design/methodology/approach

The proposed model was tested by surveying 396 respondents nested within component teams working within five South African manufacturing companies. Structural Equation Modeling was used to analyse the data.

Findings

The study reveals that by diagnosing the contextual dynamics within a multiteam system and through boundary spanning, an integration team builds trusting relationships, which will, ultimately, enable teams to achieve common superordinate goals.

Practical implications

This study offers organisations insights into how multiple component teams of different functional disciplines can work effectively towards achieving an overall or common superordinate goal. It offers insights on how to mitigate misalignment challenges by implementing an integration team within the multiteam system context.

Originality/value

Research participants were employees within a manufacturing context, which sets this study apart from many previous ones conducted in a simulated environment within a military context. The study investigates building trusting relationships among multiple component teams within a multiteam system through the implementation of an integration team, which has not been specifically addressed in previous studies.

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.

PRACTITIONER POINTS

Facilitating the exchange and interpretation of relevant information is important for improving situation assessment, decision-making, and the implementation of appropriate actions for addressing risks.Interteam information sharing can be particularly challenging when teams are comprised of members from across different organizations with different language and cultures that must form ad hoc to rapidly respond to problems in extreme environments.Adopting communication strategies that develop common frames-of-reference can facilitate information sharing and interteam responses to disasters.