Search results

The central messages of the article are threefold. First, a summary of research testing the perception that cross‐functional organization designs provide key advantages and differentiators for firms in today's hypercompetitive business climate. Second, includes a multifaceted “body of evidence” (e.g. multiple data sources, a range of industries, and various levels of management). Third, pragmatic recommendations regarding how to advance elusive cross‐functional organization design constructs, which today's executives are increasingly seeking to implement.

The article addresses several key questions – are organizations today more like cross‐functional “symphonies” or do they still resemble the traditional, functional, manufacturing model? Are cross‐functional organizations really more effective than functional organizations? And, if cross‐functional organizations are more effective, why aren't they more prevalent? To answer these questions, information from three key sources was assembled to test a body of evidence: first, a Business Schools Programs Review: a comparison of “functional” versus “cross‐functional” business school programs, that included 61 schools offering Masters of Business Administration degrees, located across the USA; second, a scan of the business literature available from five key online sources; and third, a management survey that included 212 total respondents from 37 different industries.

The evidence presented supports five key conclusions: “Functionality” is still the prevailing organization design. Business schools are not functionally focused, but corporate training is. Functionality dominates the management literature. More managers manage functionally. Cross‐functional organizations appear to have several performance advantages over functional organizations.

The key limitation of the current research, and implication for future research, is that cross‐functional and functional organizational financial performance comparisons were not conducted. Financial performance comparisons should be addressed by future research.

The article provides a set of 12 pragmatic recommendations regarding how to implement cross‐functional organization design structures.

The content of the article is useful to executives and managers for several reasons, including: pragmatic recommendations regarding how to implement cross‐functional organization design structures, which today's executives are increasingly seeking to employ. Multifaceted evidence highlighting the differences between functional and cross‐functional structures. Research confirming the assumption that cross‐functional organization designs provide a key differentiator for firms in today's hypercompetitive business climate. Broad application to companies across multiple industries. An overview of available organization design literature and case examples.

Cross-functional integration has been an important factor for manufacturing firms' performance outcomes. The study aims to expand previous research by investigating the moderating role of goal-based incentive systems in the relationship between cross-functional integration and competitive performance.

Based on multi-source data from 269 manufacturing firms around the world, regression analysis is used to test the proposed research model.

The authors' findings suggest that cross-functional integration enhances manufacturers' innovation and operational performance. Moreover, cross-functional integration has a stronger impact on operational performance when firms implement a well-designed goal-based incentive system. However, the authors find that the goal-based incentive system does not moderate the relationship between cross-functional integration and innovation performance.

The study, by investigating the fit between goal-based incentive systems and cross-functional integration, provides practical insights into the ways that firms apply cross-functional integration and goal-based incentive systems to enhance competitive performance.

This study aims to investigate the impact of cross-functional coordination (cross-functional system, process and team coordination) on customer coordination (customer strategic and operational coordination) and operational performance. Following the lens of information processing theory (IPT), this study examines the diverse mechanisms of cross-functional coordination practices in enhancing firms’ information processing capabilities (IPCs) to cope with the higher information processing demands resulting from customer coordination, finally improving operational performance.

Based on data collected from 410 Chinese manufacturers, the authors use the structural equation modeling method to test the theoretical model.

The authors found that cross-functional system coordination is positively associated with customer operational coordination (COC) but not customer strategic coordination (CSC). Cross-functional process coordination increases both customer strategic and operational coordination. Cross-functional team coordination significantly promotes CSC but not COC. Both customer operational and strategic coordination facilitate operational performance.

This research pioneers in identifying three dimensions of cross-functional coordination based on IPT and examine their distinct impacts on various customer coordination activities. The authors distinguish two customer coordination dimensions and reveal their effects on operational performance. This research contributes to the development of IPT. Additionally, this study provides guidelines for managers to coordinate internal departments and collaborate with external customers to enhance firms’ operational performance.

Although coopetition has been studied for decades, most prior studies shed light on interfirm coopetition across firms instead of intrafirm coopetition across functional departments within a firm. To fill the research gaps, this study aims to investigate the differential effects of cross-functional coopetition on both product and service innovations and the moderating roles of environmental turbulence.

This study surveyed both senior and middle managers from 149 pharmaceutical firms in China.

This study discovers the opposite relationships of cross-functional coopetition on product and service innovations such that cross-functional coopetition enhances product innovation but hurts service innovation. Furthermore, market turbulence attenuates the positive effect on product innovation but strengthens the negative effect on service innovation. However, technological turbulence attenuates the negative impact of cross-functional coopetition on service innovation.

The effects of cross-functional coopetition have been ignored in the innovation literature. By identifying the double-edged sword of cross-functional coopetition, this study contributes to the literature by providing new insights into the differential effects of cross-functional coopetition on product and service innovations.

Structural and technological changes are driving functional reorganization in many organizations. To date, there are very few articles that explicitly, consistently and cumulatively focus on cross-functional integration. This paper aims to review and explore the literature that does directly address cross-functional integration.

The authors conducted a literature review within the general management domain for the time frame 2010 to 2020 and identified 71 relevant articles that provide an overview of current practices and trends.

This conceptual paper reviews this identified literature and outlines key trends, noteworthy articles and a summary of relevant theories, and provides an overview of outcomes linked to cross-functional integration in the literature. The paper concludes with a set of recommendations for practitioners and an outline of potential research areas for academic researchers, including a call for more theory integration, building and testing in the area of cross-functionality.

This paper is the first of its kind to attempt to summarize the literature on cross-functionality (published between 2010 and 2020), a currently very fragmented field of study spread out across different management disciplines.

This paper outlines a theoretical framework for studying the integration of ethnically diverse workforces in public service organizations. Individual and work group characteristics are viewed as determinants of social identity and organizational identification. Social Identity theory suggests that individuals develop self‐concept through identification with salient groups, including ethnic groups and organizational roles. The extent to which these identifications are competitive or synergistic may depend upon organizational and work group characteristics and on organizational policies concerning selection, performance appraisal, and rewards. Cross‐functional teamwork may provide an integrative mechanism which can promote intergroup relations and encourage greater organizational commitment among an ethnically diverse workforce. Cross‐functional teams can contribute to reduced intergroup conflict and promote the development of organizational identification. The benefits of cross‐functional teams will be particularly important in situations where the workforce is diverse, but work groups are ethnically homogeneous.

Organizations are increasingly using cross‐ functional teams to address broad‐scale organizational problems, and the potential of such teams is undeniable. Bringing a cross‐functional perspective to organizational problems help build understanding, problem‐solving capabilities, co‐ordination, communication and, ultimately, improved quality and productivity. While the benefits are many, this study highlights the challenges. Over one‐half of the participants viewed their cross‐functional team’s work as unsuccessful, and these same individuals felt less optimistic about cross‐functional teams than they had before participating in one. While it is apparent that organizational leaders, are enthusiastically embracing team efforts, calls for additional analysis to explore the unique challenges of cross‐functional teams so organizations can consistently benefit from their efforts. Examines those factors that contributed to the success of the teams in this study and offers recommendations for working with cross‐functional teams.

The purpose of this paper is to characterize the cross-functional integration processes between marketing and logistics, while considering five basic elements: boundary spanning activities, integration factors, level of integration, formality/informality and impacts of integration.

After an extensive literature review, five case studies were performed and in-depth interviews conducted. Both within-case and cross-case analysis was performed to better understand the cross-functional integration processes between marketing and logistics.

A characterization of cross-functional integration in the form of a managerial framework was proposed. This framework presents the elements in a process view, instead of disconnected parts of the integration processes. The framework and process perspective helps to explain the integration process, the roles and impacts of integration within organizations, while considering cultural formality and informality.

Qualitative data collection and analysis methods cannot achieve amplitude with respect to sampling nor generalize results. In spite of this, the implications revealed by the propositions may be applied not only to Brazilian companies, but organizations in other countries as well, due to the high level of heterogeneity of the sample, and the fact that they represent multinational organizations. Therefore, further research using broad-based survey data could test the correlations between the elements of cross-functional integration processes.

The identification of the cross-functional integration processes within organizations can help managers to facilitate the efforts of integration between marketing and logistics, reducing conflicts and improving business performance.

Case studies focussing specifically on five Brazilian organizations help provide evidence for an initial definition of cross-functional integration processes by analyzing five key elements according to their characteristics and respective roles. This research provides a strong foundation for future broad-based survey research.

Well‐documented corporate demands for crossfunctionally competent employees have instigated a wide variety of efforts by the educational community to integrate business curricula. Many colleges and universities struggle to functionally integrate business programs that historically have been delivered by well‐defined, and often well‐siloed, disciplines. Drawing from the numerous published and unpublished case studies of cross‐functional integration attempts, this study develops a framework of critical issues to consider when developing an integrated program. The framework develops five major categories of issues (strategic, leadership, administrative, faculty, and student) to help universities identify typical program decisions and potential roadblocks that may inhibit the development of a successful program.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of cross‐functional teams in the alignment between system effectiveness and operational effectiveness after the implementation of enterprise information systems (EIS). In addition, it aims to explore the contribution of cross‐functional teams to improvement in operational performance.

The research uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, in a two‐stage methodological approach, to investigate the influence of cross‐functional teams on the alignment between system effectiveness and operational effectiveness and the impact of the stated alignment on the improvement in operational performance.

Initial findings suggest that factors stemming from system effectiveness and the performance objectives stemming from operational effectiveness are important and significantly well correlated factors that promote the alignment between the effectiveness of technological implementation and the effectiveness of operations. In addition, confirmatory factor analysis has been used to find the structural relationships and provide explanations for the stated alignment and the contribution of cross‐functional teams to the improvement in operational performance.

The principal limitation of this study is its small sample size.

Cross‐functional teams have been used by many organisations as a way of involving expertise from different functional areas in the implementation of innovative technologies. An appropriate use of the dimensions that emerged from this research, in the context of cross‐functional teams, will assist organisations to properly utilise cross‐functional teams with the aim of improving operational performance.

The paper presents a new approach to measure the effectiveness of EIS implementation by adding new dimensions to measure it.