Enabling knowledge diversity to benefit cross-functional project teams: Joint roles of knowledge leadership and transactive memory system

Abstract Team members’ knowledge diversity has a “double-edged sword” nature within cross-functional project teams (CFPTs), showing an inconsistent relationship with team performance. For realizing this diversity’s potential benefits, leadership is usually an essential enabler. However, little is known about how knowledge leadership achieves this. This study proposed that knowledge leadership moderates the effect of knowledge diversity on team performance through a transactive memory system (TMS). By empirically testing survey data from 96 CFPTs, we found that knowledge leadership enables a positive linkage of knowledge diversity-CFPT performance by successively breaking down barriers to communication and cooperation in TMS development and functioning.

[1]  Frances J. Milliken,et al.  Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups , 1996 .

[2]  Jack Shih-Chieh Hsu,et al.  Coping knowledge boundaries between information system and business disciplines: An intellectual capital perspective , 2014, Inf. Manag..

[3]  M. J. Donate,et al.  The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge management practices and innovation , 2015 .

[4]  C. Nerstad,et al.  Achieving success at work: development and validation of the Motivational Climate at Work Questionnaire (MCWQ) , 2013 .

[5]  Hsi-An Shih,et al.  High commitment work system, transactive memory system, and new product performance , 2014 .

[6]  Yuqing Ren,et al.  Transactive Memory Systems 1985–2010: An Integrative Framework of Key Dimensions, Antecedents, and Consequences , 2011 .

[7]  L. James.  Aggregation Bias in Estimates of Perceptual Agreement. , 1982 .

[8]  C. Judd,et al.  When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  Sofia Pemsel,et al.  The governance of knowledge in project-based organizations , 2012 .

[10]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[11]  Kevin J. Dooley,et al.  The Effects of Repeat Collaboration on Creative Abrasion , 2010 .

[12]  Julia L. Lin,et al.  Contingent contingency: Knowledge heterogeneity and new product development performance revisited , 2014 .

[13]  Malte Brettel,et al.  Organizational antecedents of cross-functional coopetition: The impact of leadership and organizational structure on cross-functional coopetition , 2016 .

[14]  Vesa Peltokorpi,et al.  Transactive Memory Systems , 2008 .

[15]  Mo Wang,et al.  When and how does functional diversity influence team innovation? The mediating role of knowledge sharing and the moderation role of affect-based trust in a team , 2016 .

[16]  M. Beyerlein,et al.  Cross-Functional Integration as a Knowledge Transformation Mechanism: Implications for New Product Development , 2010 .

[17]  L. James,et al.  Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. , 1984 .

[18]  Terri L. Griffith,et al.  Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory , 1999 .

[19]  Bin Hao,et al.  Orchestrating Heterogeneous Knowledge: The Effects of Internal and External Knowledge Heterogeneity on Innovation Performance , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[20]  C. Lakshman,et al.  Organizational knowledge leadership: a grounded theory approach , 2007 .

[21]  Paul S. Hempel,et al.  Transactive memory system links work team characteristics and performance. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[22]  C. Shalley,et al.  A Little Creativity Goes a Long Way: An Examination of Teams’ Engagement in Creative Processes , 2004 .

[23]  Ryan T. Wright,et al.  Controlling for Common Method Variance in PLS Analysis: The Measured Latent Marker Variable Approach , 2013 .

[24]  Heeseok Lee,et al.  Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and Organizational Performance: An Integrative View and Empirical Examination , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[25]  Mohamed Louadi.  Knowledge heterogeneity and social network analysis – Towards conceptual and measurement clarifications , 2008 .

[26]  Heeseok Lee,et al.  The Impact of Information Technology and Transactive Memory Systems on Knowledge Sharing, Application, and Team Performance: A Field Study , 2010, MIS Q..

[27]  Jörg Henseler,et al.  Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications , 2010 .

[28]  Tammy L. Rapp,et al.  Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse Into the Future , 2008 .

[29]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN ORGANIZATIONS: MULTIPLE NETWORKS, MULTIPLE PHASES , 2005 .

[30]  John D'Ambra,et al.  Coopetitive relationships in cross-functional software development teams: How to model and measure? , 2012, J. Syst. Softw..

[31]  S. Hannah,et al.  A multilevel approach to building and leading learning organizations , 2009 .

[32]  Miha Škerlavaj,et al.  The role of multilevel synergistic interplay among team mastery climate, knowledge hiding, and job characteristics in stimulating innovative work behavior , 2017 .

[33]  Xiang Zhang,et al.  SVM-Based Techniques for Predicting Cross-Functional Team Performance: Using Team Trust as a Predictor , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[34]  John D'Ambra,et al.  Modeling High-Quality Knowledge Sharing in cross-functional software development teams , 2013, Inf. Process. Manag..

[35]  Bernard A. Nijstad,et al.  Motivated information processing in organizational teams: Progress, puzzles, and prospects , 2012 .

[36]  S. Geisser.  A predictive approach to the random effect model , 1974 .

[37]  Kimberly S. Jaussi,et al.  Functional Background Identity, Diversity, and Individual Performance in Cross-Functional Teams , 2003 .

[38]  Linda Argote,et al.  Knowledge Utilization, Coordination, and Team Performance , 2016, Organ. Sci..

[39]  Simon Rodan,et al.  More than Network Structure: How Knowledge Heterogeneity Influences Managerial Performance and Innovativeness , 2004 .

[40]  Kyle Lewis.  Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and validation. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[41]  Jiajia Cheng,et al.  Effect of Knowledge Leadership on Knowledge Sharing in Engineering Project Design Teams: The Role of Social Capital , 2015 .

[42]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet , 2011 .

[43]  Wenpin Tsai.  Social Structure of Coopetition Within a Multiunit Organization: Coordination, Competition, and Intraorganizational Knowledge Sharing , 2002 .

[44]  C. Lakshman.  Organizational knowledge leadership , 2009 .

[45]  Mervi Hasu,et al.  Transactive memory systems in research team innovation: A moderated mediation analysis , 2016 .

[46]  Kyle Lewis,et al.  Transactive Memory Systems: Current Issues and Future Research Directions , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[47]  S. Voelpel,et al.  WHEN AND HOW DIVERSITY BENEFITS TEAMS: THE IMPORTANCE OF TEAM MEMBERS' NEED FOR COGNITION , 2009 .

[48]  Sheng-Pao Shih,et al.  The impact of transactive memory systems on IS development teams , 2012 .

[49]  John D'Ambra,et al.  Knowledge Sharing in Cross-Functional Teams: A Coopetitive Model , 2012, J. Knowl. Manag..

[50]  C. R. Kothari,et al.  Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques , 2009 .

[51]  Riitta Viitala,et al.  Towards knowledge leadership , 2004 .

[52]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic - Mail Emotion/Adoption Study , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[53]  Amrit Tiwana,et al.  Knowledge integration in virtual teams: The potential role of KMS , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[54]  Yan Zhang.  Functional Diversity and Group Creativity , 2016 .

[55]  Li-Ren Yang,et al.  Knowledge leadership to improve project and organizational performance , 2014 .

[56]  Anne O'Brien,et al.  Predicting transactive memory systems in multidisciplinary teams : The interplay between team and professional identities , 2015 .

[57]  S. K. Horwitz,et al.  The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of Team Demography , 2007 .

[58]  Dirk De Clercq,et al.  A Closer Look at Cross‐Functional Collaboration and Product Innovativeness: Contingency Effects of Structural and Relational Context , 2011 .

[59]  D. C. Pullés,et al.  Network ties and transactive memory systems: leadership as an enabler , 2017 .

[60]  Yanfeng Zheng.  Unlocking Founding Team Prior Shared Experience: A Transactive Memory System Perspective , 2012 .

[61]  G. V. D. Vegt,et al.  Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification , 2005 .

[62]  Yong-Hui Li,et al.  Exploitative and exploratory learning in transactive memory systems and project performance , 2013, Inf. Manag..

[63]  Jing Zhou,et al.  When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[64]  Rob Cross,et al.  A Relational View of Information Seeking and Learning in Social Networks , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[65]  Allard C.R. van Riel,et al.  Improving Screening Decision Making through Transactive Memory Systems: A Field Study , 2013 .

[66]  Kyle Lewis,et al.  Knowledge and Performance in Knowledge-Worker Teams: A Longitudinal Study of Transactive Memory Systems , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[67]  Bart van den Hooff,et al.  Are We on the Same Page? Knowledge Boundaries and Transactive Memory System Development in Cross-Functional Teams , 2015, Commun. Res..

[68]  Julija Mell,et al.  The catalyst effect: : The impact of transactive memory system structure on team performance , 2014 .