This article argues that by assigning employees to multiple teams simultaneously, organizations can make better use of time and brainpower. And, that multiple teams do a better job of solving problems and sharing knowledge across groups or projects. The article also acknowledges that in reality competing priorities and overlapping group membership can make it difficult for projects to stay on track. And, when breakdowns happen the benefits of multi-teaming can be eaten away by the costs which can be interpersonal, psychological and financial. Drawing from their research, Mortensen and Gardener have identified ways for team and organizational leaders to reduce the costs of multi-teaming and capitalize on the benefits.
In my organization we do multi-team on projects, we work in a knowledge industry and we mix teams with in-house staff, freelance talent, and subject matter experts; a “perfect fit” for the suggestions of the authors for maximizing productivity and output. In spite of this “perfect fit” for the multi-teaming approach ne’er a quarter goes by where one or more projects doesn’t fall behind and spill over into multiple project cycles. In spite of careful skill mapping attempts and reasonable efforts to build trust and familiarity at launch time, managing time across teams often proves to be our biggest challenge. Our subject matter experts are often double dipping across their personal and professional time to partner with us and will not prioritize our projects when push comes to shove. This will result in unmet deadlines, project delays and an indefinite loss of downtime between projects leading to burnout. Despite department efforts to boost motivation regularly, it is possible that our project launches do not generate the bond and feeling of cohesion needed to properly build confidence and trust in the team that would propel a project forward.
LO 3: Address complex challenges by collaboratively leading teams across disciplines, distances and sectors.
Comments