Improving Internal Functioning of Cross-Functional Teams: A Social Identity Theory Based Process

Abstract

Cross-functional teams are becoming increasingly common in organisations. However, a large proportion of these teams fail to meet their full potential as social and productive units. The present research was conducted under the assumption that a cross-functional team involves simultaneous intragroup and intergroup contact. The failure of cross-functional teams often involves the neglect of normal social psychological processes that occur in intergroup contexts that may potentially be employed to increase the likelihood of success with cross-functional teams. The social identity theory approach to intergroup relations was used to formulate two identity management strategies intended to improve the functioning of a cross-functional team. One strategy involved social interaction within an intragroup social frame. The intragroup aspect was apparent in that there was no outgroup present, with participants operating at the intergroup level of psychological processing after exposure to (successful) pre-task manipulations intended to facilitate acceptance of the task group social identity. The intragroup identity management process required increasing pre-task salience of the task group social identity, absence of any outgroup, wearing a team uniform, and performance of an intellectually challenging problem solving as a group. A second identity management process was based in an intergroup social frame. The intergroup procedure involved pre-task manipulation of social identity, wearing of a team uniform, and performance of a physically and intellectually involving problem solving task in a competitive intergroup social frame. Two separate studies were performed. In Study one, 110 university students were randomly assigned to 'mono-functional' teams (teams with no obvious basis for internal intergroup differentiation). The relative efficacy of either of the two identity management processes was assessed with regards to changes in social identity, subjective uncertainty, conceptualisation of the aggregate, similarity, heterogeneity, effort, and trust. Pre-post within groups differences were analysed Improving functioning of cross-functional teams by repeated measures ANOVA. Between groups differences were analysed with ANCOVA. The results indicated both identity management strategies resulted in improved team functioning. In general, neither strategy was notably superior to the other, however there was less subjective uncertainty reported by participants from the intragroup condition than those from the intergroup condition due to the effect of losing the competition. Participants from losing teams also became more aware of 'subgroups within the single group' than those from the intragroup condition. Participants from the intergroup condition were less likely to think of themselves as separate individuals than participants from the intragroup condition. The social identity theory approach to intergroup relations was useful for interpreting the results as well as developing the two strategies which suggests SIT/SCT provide a potentially useful conceptual base from which to develop team building processes in mono-functional teams. In study 2, 110 university students were assigned to cross-functional teams (composite task groups containing three academic subgroups). The identity management processes used in Study one were extended by drawing participant attention to the presence of subgroups within the cross-functional teams. The intragroup process involved pre-task manipulation of social identity, wearing uniforms which denoted both task group and subgroup membership, and performance of an intellectually challenging problem solving task which was performed with out an outgroup present. The intergroup identity management strategy involved pre-task manipulation of social identity, performance of a physically and intellectually involving problem solving task requiring integration of subgroup knowledge and inter-functional cooperation within a competitive intergroup context. As in the intragroup condition, participants were made aware of the social complexity of the task group through their uniforms. Participants responded differently to the two identity management processes, with the intergroup strategy proving more beneficial than the intragroup strategy. The intragroup process was marked by non-significant pre-post differences, indicating neither Improving functioning of cross-functional teams a marked improvement nor decline in group functioning. In contrast, participants from the intergroup condition reported results indicating increased post-task self-definition with the cross-functional team, increased trust, and higher effort. Losing the competition did not impact on post-task levels of any dependent variable with the exception of subjective uncertainty, where 'winners' reported less uncertainty than 'losers'. The intergroup condition gave rise to the most potential perceived 'distinctiveness threat'; however there was no sign of any threat across the array of dependent variables. Therefore it can be suggested that the intergroup identity management strategy provided some protection to the cross-functional team from the negative impact of inter-functional distinctiveness threat. All results could be explained with recourse to the concepts of SIT/SCT which suggests social identity theory has utility for interpreting results as well as developing team building processes in cross-functional teams. Future research in cross-functional team settings would benefit from the development of comprehensive measures of uncertainty, status, and heterogeneity with item content drawn from social identity and self-categorisation theories.