IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v33y2022i1p311-331.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing Boundaries in Multiteam Structures: From Parochialism to Integrated Pluralism

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas A. de Vries

    (Department of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior, University of Groningen, 9747AE Groningen, Netherlands)

  • Gerben S. van der Vegt

    (Department of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior, University of Groningen, 9747AE Groningen, Netherlands)

  • J. Stuart Bunderson

    (John M. Olin Business School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 63130)

  • Frank Walter

    (Department of Organization and Human Resources, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, 35394 Giessen, Germany)

  • Peter J. M. D. Essens

    (Department of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior, University of Groningen, 9747AE Groningen, Netherlands)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas A. de Vries & Gerben S. van der Vegt & J. Stuart Bunderson & Frank Walter & Peter J. M. D. Essens, 2022. "Managing Boundaries in Multiteam Structures: From Parochialism to Integrated Pluralism," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 311-331, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:33:y:2022:i:1:p:311-331
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2021.1436
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1436
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2021.1436?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:33:y:2022:i:1:p:311-331. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.