Antecedents and consequences of project team cross-functional cooperation

Cross-functional teams can greatly facilitate the successful implementation of projects. This study examined the influence of a set four antecedent constructs (superordinate goals, accessibility, physical proximity and formalized rules and procedures) on the attainment of both cross-functional cooperation and perceived project outcomes. Through the use of path analysis, the results indicated that superordinate goals, physical proximity and project team rules and procedures have significant direct and/or indirect effects on project outcomes through influencing cross-functional cooperation. Further, cross-functional cooperation was a significant predictor of both perceived task and psychosocial project outcomes. Directions for management practice and future research are discussed.

[1]  James David Mooney,et al.  The principles of organization , 1939 .

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

[3]  R. Walton,et al.  The Management of Interdepartmental Conflict: A Model and Review. , 1969 .

[4]  H. Kelley,et al.  Social interaction basis of cooperators' and competitors' beliefs about others. , 1970 .

[5]  D. Silverman,et al.  The Structure of Organizations. , 1971 .

[6]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Cooperativeness and social perspective taking. , 1975 .

[7]  Thomas J. Allen,et al.  Managing the flow of technology: technology transfer and the dissemination of technological informat , 1977 .

[8]  Patrick R. Laughlin,et al.  Ability and Group Problem Solving. , 1978 .

[9]  Michael K. Moch,et al.  How norms affect behaviors in and of corporations , 1979 .

[10]  Daniel J. Brass,et al.  Employee Reactions to an Open-Plan Office: A Naturally Occurring Quasi-Experiment. , 1979 .

[11]  L. Bourgeois.  Performance and consensus , 1980 .

[12]  W. Souder.  Disharmony between R&D and marketing , 1981 .

[13]  A pragmatic typology of hospitals based on their internal complexity dimension. , 1982 .

[14]  Rupert Brown,et al.  Superordinate goals and intergroup conflict , 1983 .

[15]  G. John,et al.  Effects of Organizational Structure of Marketing Planning on Credibility and Utilization of Plan Output , 1984 .

[16]  D. Tjosvold.  Cooperation Theory and Organizations , 1984 .

[17]  Toyohiro Kono,et al.  Strategy and structure of Japanese enterprises , 1984 .

[18]  Paul C. Nutt,et al.  Tactics of Implementation , 1986 .

[19]  R. Keller,et al.  Predictors of the Performance of Project Groups in R & D Organizations , 1986 .

[20]  G. Zaltman,et al.  A Comparison of Factors Affecting Use of Marketing Information in Consumer and Industrial Firms , 1987 .

[21]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Authors' response to Bordoloi and Lauer: problems of applying OLS / path analysis for estimating structural (multi-equation) models , 1989 .

[22]  D. Farmer.  Strategies for Change. , 1990 .

[23]  W. Souder,et al.  An anlysis of the use of extrafunctional information by R&D and marketing personnel: Review and model☆ , 1990 .