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.

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 increasingly rely on cross-functional teams to deal with supply chain (SC) disruptions. These teams may use their broad range of connections and expertise to gather or scout relevant information, enabling them to develop integrative countermeasures and increase their organization’s resilience. Despite their potential, cross-functional teams often struggle to attain information scouting’s prospective benefits for effectively resolving disruptions. By drawing from group information-processing theory, this study aims to explore when and how cross-functional teams can realize information scouting’s full potential for ensuring their organization’s resilience.

Multisource, multi-informant data were collected from 80 cross-functional teams exposed to SC disruptions in a realistic SC management simulation.

The results show that a cross-functional team’s ability to effectively use information scouting for ensuring its organization’s resilience is contingent upon the degree to which the team’s members share information and align decisions internally (i.e. internal integration). The findings further reveal that this moderating role of internal integration is strengthened when the cross-functional team faces a volatile environment in which multiple SC disruptions are likely to occur (i.e. higher SC vulnerability).

This study contributes by advancing a more complete perspective on how a cross-functional team may contribute to its organization’s resilience. Specifically, the present research reveals how the benefits of a cross-functional team’s information scouting for dealing with SC disruptions are critically dependent upon internal conditions within the team, as well as external conditions related to its organization’s overall SC (i.e. beyond individual dyadic relationships).

This article aims to examine the influence of emotional intelligence on cross-functional teams, the formation of interorganizational networks and the impact of all three dimensions on operational effectiveness.

The analysis was based on 250 valid questionnaires collected from organizations in the Valle del Cauca region in Colombia in the service sector. The variables were analyzed using structural equation modeling to identify their relationships.

The results suggest that emotional intelligence contributes to establishing cross-functional teams but does not impact the development of interorganizational networks, influencing operational effectiveness only indirectly through the cross-functional teams. Contrary to what the literature suggests, interorganizational networks do not influence the operational effectiveness of organizations. Hence, in the pursuit of competitive advantage, companies in the studied region should encourage the creation of cross-functional teams within their organizations to maximize the returns received through the optimization of operational effectiveness.

Organizations are comprised of individuals whose emotional intelligence competencies and abilities enable them to form effective cross-functional teams. Furthermore, cross-functional teams that effectively establish relationships with other organizations are frequently employed in global, interorganizational collaboration environments like joint ventures and alliances. Cross-functional teams that fulfill their aims have the potential to benefit the organization's performance by boosting operational effectiveness and, therefore, its competitiveness.

The value of this article lies in providing a better understanding of the capabilities and strategies of organizations in the construction of interorganizational networks intended to improve their competitiveness. However, before operational effectiveness and a sustainable competitive advantage can be achieved, the role of the individuals comprising the cross-functional teams should be managed through the appropriate application of the concepts of emotional intelligence.

The purpose of this paper is to identify prerequisites for sustaining effective cross‐functional integration as well as their temporal inter‐relationships. Once this type of information is known, a “cause‐effect‐cause” model is constructed to identify constraints and improve effectiveness.

A case research approach was used to explore the relationships between various prerequisites of integration and to understand “how” or “why” their presence may influence the success of sustaining integration. The study focused on 13 companies from the US aerospace defense industry which were in the process of implementing TQM programs.

Organizations which successfully attained “sustained” integration indicated that the reward/performance system based on cross‐functional or process objectives was the major driver behind: forcing employees to understand the organization's processes; providing dedicated time for employees to reflect on process improvement; ensuring employees are rewarded for process improvements; and increasing accountability for integration. These organizations believe that the employee's understanding of the strategic processes acted in conjunction with the process improvements rewards to improve the employees' understanding that cross‐functional relations play a critical role in success.

The findings provide a valuable linkage between the organizational constraints, integration and the organizational learning literature.

Study results suggest both a construct for measuring levels of organizational integration and a cause‐effect‐cause relationship to identify prerequisite constraints.

This is one of the few studies that examine 13 corporations to clarify both the prerequisites for sustaining integration and their temporal inter‐relationships. Additionally, a “cause‐effect‐cause” model based on the Theory of Constraints is used to identify prerequisite constraints.

This article sets out to examine the common organizational problem of inadequate tracking and follow‐through of cross‐functional corrective actions and strategic objectives. Various solutions were tested to develop a “best practice” for improving the effectiveness and accountability of implementing action plans.

Program audits were conducted on the tracking and effectiveness of strategic objectives and corrective action plans at 24 aerospace‐related companies (e.g. Northrop, Allied Signal) in the USA.

Generally, strategic objectives and correction actions are performed adequately and on‐time within an organization's function (e.g. engineering). The adequacy of cross‐functional actions, however, was a completely different story. Typically, these actions were delayed past the “need by dates” and often failed to satisfy the internal customer's need. Several solutions were examined and “the dynamic stringing” method proved to be the most effective.

Future studies need to focus on additional methods to insure accountability of cross‐functional requirements to include incentives.

This study presents the basis for a “best practice” that could help solve inefficiencies and delays in completing cross‐functional actions. The core concept of “paper and string” can easily be upgraded to computerized project management systems. The key, however, is not to lose the power of “visibility.”

This is the only study that has examined the chronic problem or “dirty little” secret of poor cross‐functional support in numerous organizations. The value is to managers that need to insure the accomplishment of strategic objectives and corrective actions.

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.

Traditional organizations with heavy internal competition, rigid functional silos and undue compartmentalization exhibit sub‐optimal performance by inhibiting critical knowledge flows. Cross‐functional teaming attempts to solve this problem by building organizational connections across functional silos. However, merely bringing members of formerly isolated departments together produces only marginal increases in performance. Any synergistic collaboration is likely to arise serendipitously and unpredictably. We propose a systematic approach for combining the principles of knowledge management and cross‐functional teaming in ways that purposefully enhance knowledge flows and result in significant improvements in organizational performance as measured by cost, time and quality.

This study investigates the role of collaborative spaces as organizational support for internal innovation through cross-functional teams and for open innovation with external stakeholders. In particular, the study focuses on collaborative spaces as tools for multiplex (i.e., simultaneous internal and external boundary management in innovation projects).

The authors conducted a qualitative study in a multi-divisional organization that set up in its headquarters a collaborative space for collaborative product development. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and participant observations.

Findings highlight that the relation between expectations and experiences about the collaborative space impact on employees' ability to perform boundary work inside and outside the organization. In addition to the collaborative space's affording role for expectations about hands-on collaborative innovation (space as laboratory), the study also highlights a set of collaboration constraints. These latter are generated by perceived boundary configurations (i.e. degree of boundary permeability and infrastructure in internal and external collaborations) and by discrepancies between expectations (space as laboratory) and actual collaboration experiences in the space (i.e. space as maze, cloister, showcase and silo). We show that space-generated constraints slow down internal and external boundary work for innovation and generate a trade-off between them.

Using the process-based perspective of boundary work, the paper connects studies on cross-functional teaming and open innovation through the concept of “multiplex boundary work.” It also contributes to the literature on boundary work by showing the challenges of using collaborative spaces as organizational support tools for multiplex boundary spanning.

The purpose of this paper is to review the empirical research on matrix organizations and cross-functional teams (CFTs) in the public sector, focussing on typical application areas and settings and on motivation for deployment and evidence of utility.

This is a systematic literature review compiled from several electronic databases. Data cover the period from 1990 to 2015 and are confined to academic articles written in English.

Applications of the matrix approach in public sector organizations are found in human resource management and performance management, service development and public procurement, and creation of new organizations or organization reform and network organizations. While the proven utility of matrix organization is often unclear, especially CFTs are linked to better organizational performance, improved coordination, internal collaboration and development of cross-boundary tasks.

Methodological limitations relate to excluded data due to non-accessible articles.

The findings have practical implications for public sector organizations in adapting to a changing environment.

This is the first systematic literature review of matrix management in public sector organizations.