The double-edged sword of decentralized planning in multiteam systems.

The literature on small stand-alone teams has suggested that decentralization has predominantly positive features. However, in multiteam systems, the presence of other highly interdependent teams adds a level of complexity that may preclude generalizing from teams to multiteam systems. We studied the effects of decentralized planning in 210 multiteam systems, each composed of three six-person, functionally specialized component teams. As has previous research, we find that decentralized planning has positive effects on multiteam system performance, attributable to enhanced proactivity and aspiration levels. However, we also find that the positive effects associated with decentralized planning are offset by the even stronger negative effects attributable to excessive risk seeking and coordination failures. We discuss the implications for theories of intrateam and interteam dynamics, along with the applied implications for designing empowerment interventions in team and multiteam contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[1]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. , 1985 .

[2]  M. Schweitzer,et al.  Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting , 2009 .

[3]  Jay R. Galbraith.  Matrix organization designs How to combine functional and project forms , 1971 .

[4]  P. Bromiley.  Testing a Causal Model of Corporate Risk Taking and Performance , 1991 .

[5]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. , 2002, The American psychologist.

[6]  Jitendra V. Singh.  Performance, Slack, and Risk Taking in Organizational Decision Making , 1986 .

[7]  J. March,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm , 1964 .

[8]  S. Parker,et al.  Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: the roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. , 1998, The Journal of applied psychology.

[9]  K. Klein,et al.  Levels Issues in Theory Development, Data Collection, and Analysis , 1994 .

[10]  Samuel Aryee,et al.  Impact of high-performance work systems on individual- and branch-level performance: test of a multilevel model of intermediate linkages. , 2012, The Journal of applied psychology.

[11]  J. Hollenbeck,et al.  Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Problems, prospects, and proposals for future research. , 1987 .

[12]  M. D. Dunnette.  Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 2005 .

[13]  Tatsuya Kameda,et al.  The function of the reference point in individual and group risk decision making , 1990 .

[14]  Allen C. Bluedorn,et al.  Men and Women of the Corporation , 1978 .

[15]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  Work Groups and Teams in Organizations , 2003 .

[16]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  Relationships Among Goal Difficulty, Business Strategies, and Performance On A Complex Management Simulation Task , 1991 .

[17]  P. Christopher Earley,et al.  The Impact of Participation on Goal Acceptance and Performance: A Two-Step Model , 1985 .

[18]  Brett R. Smith,et al.  Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. , 2006 .

[19]  Hans-Georg Gemünden,et al.  Interteam Coordination, Project Commitment, and Teamwork in Multiteam R&D Projects: A Longitudinal Study , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[20]  A. Tannenbaum.  Control in Organizations , 1969 .

[21]  David A. Hofmann,et al.  Reversing the Extraverted Leadership Advantage: The Role of Collective Employee Proactivity , 2011 .

[22]  H. P. Sims,et al.  Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. , 2002 .

[23]  Emily S. Block,et al.  Why 'Good' Firms Do Bad Things: The Effects of High Aspirations, High Expectations and Prominence on the Incidence of Corporate Illegality , 2010 .

[24]  D. Knippenberg,et al.  How Does Bureaucracy Impact Individual Creativity? A Cross-Level Investigation of Team Contextual Influences on Goal Orientation–Creativity Relationships , 2011 .

[25]  Dustin K. Jundt,et al.  Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. , 2005, Annual review of psychology.

[26]  Deepak Malhotra,et al.  When winning is everything. , 2008, Harvard business review.

[27]  E. A. Locke.  Motivation, Cognition, and Action: An Analysis of Studies of Task Goals and Knowledge , 2000 .

[28]  John A. Wagner,et al.  Structural contingency theory and individual differences: examination of external and internal person-team fit. , 2002 .

[29]  David Miller.  Strategy Making and Structure: Analysis and Implications for Performance , 1987 .

[30]  T. Wall,et al.  The impact of autonomy and task uncertainty on team performance: A longitudinal field study , 2010 .

[31]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[32]  Leslie A. DeChurch,et al.  Leadership in multiteam systems. , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[33]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Planning, Shared Mental Models, and Coordinated Performance: An Empirical Link Is Established , 1999, Hum. Factors.

[34]  Peter K. Mills,et al.  Reassessing the Limits of Structural Empowerment: Organizational Constitution and Trust as Controls , 2003 .

[35]  Tammy L. Rapp,et al.  Laying the foundation for successful team performance trajectories: The roles of team charters and performance strategies. , 2009, The Journal of applied psychology.

[36]  Richard F. Vancil,et al.  Strategic planning systems , 1977 .

[37]  Adam D. Galinsky,et al.  8 Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status , 2008 .

[38]  P. Earley,et al.  Comparative analysis of goal-setting strategies across cultures. , 1987 .

[39]  Dustin J. Sleesman,et al.  Coordinated action in multiteam systems. , 2012, The Journal of applied psychology.

[40]  Adam M. Grant,et al.  The dynamics of proactivity at work , 2008 .

[41]  G. Steiner,et al.  Strategic Planning: What Every Manager Must Know , 2008 .

[42]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[43]  Craig L. Pearce,et al.  Book Review: Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership , 2005 .

[44]  Jane E. Dutton,et al.  The influence of the strategic planning process on strategic change , 1987 .

[45]  P. Gollwitzer.  Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. , 1999 .

[46]  Wen-Bin Chiou,et al.  Framing Effects in Group Investment Decision Making: Role of Group Polarization , 2008, Psychological reports.

[47]  Leslie A. DeChurch,et al.  Teamwork in multiteam systems. , 2005, The Journal of applied psychology.

[48]  Dwight D. Frink,et al.  A Review of the Influence of Group Goals on Group Performance , 1994 .

[49]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[50]  E. Weldon,et al.  Processes that mediate the relationship between a group goal and improved group performance. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[51]  Verlin B. Hinsz,et al.  Goal Setting by Groups Performing an Additive Task: A Comparison With Individual Goal Setting1 , 1995 .

[52]  H. Thomas,et al.  Attitudes Toward Risk and The Risk–Return Paradox: Prospect Theory Explanations , 1988 .

[53]  Adam M. Grant,et al.  7 Redesigning Work Design Theories: The Rise of Relational and Proactive Perspectives , 2009 .

[54]  Richard P. Larrick,et al.  Goal-Induced Risk Taking in Negotiation and Decision Making , 2009 .

[55]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[56]  Jennifer L. Berdahl,et al.  The Study of Groups: Past, Present, and Future , 2000 .

[57]  Nick Turner,et al.  Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[58]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez–Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting. , 1988 .

[59]  Jay R. Galbraith.  Designing Matrix Organizations that Actually Work: How IBM, Procter & Gamble and Others Design for Success , 2008 .

[60]  Fintan Costello,et al.  How probability theory explains the conjunction fallacy , 2009 .

[61]  C. Alderfer,et al.  Studying Intergroup Relations Embedded in Organizations. , 1982 .

[62]  William R. King,et al.  The logic of strategic planning , 1982 .

[63]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  The structuring of organizations : a synthesis of the research , 1980 .

[64]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Self-regulation through goal setting , 1991 .

[65]  Ronald F. Piccolo,et al.  A META‐ANALYSIS OF TEAMWORK PROCESSES: TESTS OF A MULTIDIMENSIONAL MODEL AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH TEAM EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA , 2008 .

[66]  Kent D. Miller,et al.  Variable Organizational Risk Preferences: Tests of the March-Shapira Model , 2004 .

[67]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  Goal setting, planning, and organizational performance: An experimental simulation , 1990 .