Herding the cats: How to lead a cross-organizational team

Steve Kelman is professor of public management at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.

“There is nothing so practical as a good theory,” famed social psychologist Kurt Lewin wrote many years ago. As an academic who cares about improving government management, I have always embraced Lewin’s aphorism as a guiding star for aspirations for my own research and for what I look for in the research of others.

The Academy of Management Review (AMR) is the quarterly theory journal of the leading professional association for scholars (mostly at business schools) who study organizations. Its counterpart publication, the Academy of Management Journal, presents empirical papers — i.e., those with evidence. AMR doesn’t always live up to Lewin’s admonition. Frankly, I find many of the papers to be academic in the pejorative sense of the word and not particularly useful or even insightful.

However, the April issue of AMR has a fascinating paper that is both novel and useful. It has the slightly daunting title “Intergroup Leadership in Organizations: Leading Across Group and Organizational Boundaries” and was written by Michael Hogg and David Rast of Claremont Graduate University and Daan Van Knippenberg of Erasmus University in the Netherlands. The basic question the authors ask is: What should leaders of cross-organizational collaborations or cross-functional teams do to increase the identification of group members with the work of the collaboration or the team? With the spread of both formal collaborations and cross-functional teams in government, the question is clearly a practical one. It is also vexing because it is frequently hard to get cross-functional groups to play well together.

The authors say collaboration leaders typically try to create an overarching, collective identity for members of the collaboration, a sense of commitment to it that transcends commitments to their functional homes. The message leaders give is that the various groups that compose the collaboration or team are more similar to one another than those in the individual functions would have believed. Often, leaders attempt to encourage such understanding by using rotational assignments, as is done with temporary assignments of military officers to joint activities or among people from different parts of the intelligence community to understand the other organizations better.

The authors argue, however, that this approach is unlikely to work. A sense of commitment to their home organizations and/or functions is a strong part of many people’s identities.

Instead, the authors recommend a different leadership approach, one that builds what they call intergroup relational identity. The idea is that leaders should encourage group members to understand that “the intergroup collaboration is essential to achieving outcomes that are deeply valued by the group” rather than pushing the notion that the different groups making up the collaboration are similar to one another. A homey example of an interpersonal relational identity is a parent/child relationship: There is no suggestion that parent and child are the same, only that the relationship creates value.

That means, for example, that leaders of cross-agency intelligence efforts shouldn’t promote the idea that the FBI and the CIA are the same, only that their joint activities can produce better results than either could do alone. The authors argue that collaboration leaders can do this by engaging in their own boundary-spanning behavior and demonstrating that they can’t do their jobs properly without working with members from other organizations or functions.

Is this approach useful? I think it is, but I would like to hear what collaboration and cross-functional team managers think.

About the Author

Kelman is professor of public management at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. Connect with him on Twitter: @kelmansteve

Nominate Today!

Nominations for the 2018 Federal 100 Awards are now being accepted, and are due by Dec. 23. 


Reader comments

Fri, Jun 22, 2012 Adam Etkin

Prof. Kelman, Thank you for the positive mention of our AMR journal article. I just wanted to say that we have a great Editor in Roy Suddaby and hopefully AMR can publish more of these types of papers and change your perception of the 'overly academic' character of the journal. Perhaps AMR's new approach to book reviews might help in that regard. Best, Adam Etkin Director of Publishing Academy of Management

Thu, Jun 21, 2012 d trujillo usps

I find the task of project leader rewarding. It requires me to be a good listener when information is being presented by others from different functions. The challenge to learn is rewarded with satisfaction when the project is progressing. Communication is essential. Recognition of team members goes a long way to achieve discretionary effort. Leadership is the one key element to achieve success.

Thu, Jun 21, 2012 earth

If you try to treat the liver like a stomach you are just going to get jaundice. Every cell, organ, organism, organization, state, nation, etc. creates boundaries and an environment within that boundary conducive to the operational paradigm of the instance. That’s Living System Theory 101. So how does the organism coordinate the actions of the organs to maintain dynamic homeostasis? It doesn’t try to modify the operational paradigm or the self organized environment but it does try to inhibit or enhance some function within them (dynamic homeostasis is a bit of an oxymoron at small scales). The FBI and the CIA have different goals and therefore different organizational paradigms including rules of engagement and protection of rights. A coordinator would have to know what these are and not violate them while creating symbiotic relationships between their functions. Study endosymbiosis but never, ever take the attitude of “heading cats”. That is one of the signs that the “leader” does not care enough about the instances under them to understand their goals, operational paradigm or provide for their needs.

Our founding fathers understood that a country obtains its rights from the consent of the governed. (Note: the government is granted rights from the prople, it has none otherwise) That’s bottom up (democracy) not top down (tyranny). If you are trying to impose an agenda that is not in the interest of the operational paradigm and self created environment of the subordinate organizations, you are acting as a tyrant. Sic simper tyrannis. Let the subordinate instances dissolve the union and go their own ways if they are totipotent.
I have to wonder if the halls of government are seeing the imposition of a foreign agenda for the benefit of a foreign state.

Thu, Jun 21, 2012 Jon

Useful, but incomplete. Other things to consider: (1) silencing the Evangelists and the Not-Invented-Here crowd by emphasizing generic options instead endlessly "not reinventing the wheel" by hearing what worked in a much more limited context, (2) rewarding cross-boundary behaviors early and often as encouragement to the team members, (3) consistently using language that emphasizes the collective rather than the parts (eg. don't refer to our colleagues from XYZ).

Thu, Jun 21, 2012

It would be nice if Congress read this article and realized they need to work together for the benefit of the people (rather than themselves or the president).

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

More from 1105 Public Sector Media Group