Drawing on the literature on multiple team memberships (MTM), boundary management, and team knowledge sharing, this study examines how individuals navigate knowledge sharing across teams through a phronetic iterative analysis of 18 interviews with knowledge workers. Findings reveal two tensional themes, Idealized Openness and Conditional Closedness, which manifest across individual, interpersonal, team, and organizational levels. Findings also reveal that workers actively employ various communicative strategies to manage the two tensions when sharing or withholding knowledge across team boundaries. Implications focus on the romanticized norm of openness, and on extending MTM and multi-team system (MTS) theories in teams and organizations.
AllenN. J.HechtT. D. (2004). The ‘romance of teams’: Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 439–461. https://doi.org/10.1348/0963179042596469
2.
AlsharoM.GreggD.RamirezR. (2017). Virtual team effectiveness: The role of knowledge sharing and trust. Information & Management, 54(4), 479–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.10.005
3.
BerghD. D.KetchenD. J.OrlandiI.HeugensP. P. M. A. R.BoydB. K. (2019). Information asymmetry in management research: Past accomplishments and future opportunities. Journal of Management, 45(1), 122–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318798026
4.
BertolottiF.MattarelliE.VignoliM.MacriD. M. (2015). Exploring the relationship between multiple team membership and team performance: The role of social networks and collaborative technology. Research Policy, 44(4), 911–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.01.019
5.
BienefeldN.GroteG. (2014). Speaking up in ad hoc multiteam systems: Individual-level effects of psychological safety, status, and leadership within and across teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(6), 930–945. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.808398
6.
BorgattiS. P.CrossR. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.432.14428
7.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.
8.
CastanedaD.DuranW. (2018). Knowledge sharing in organizations: Roles of beliefs, training, and perceived organizational support. Knowledge Management & E-learning, 10(2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2018.10.010
9.
ChanK.OerlemansL.MeslecN. (2021). The impact of multiple project team membership on individual and team learning: A micro-meso multi-level empirical study. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 39, 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.11.002
10.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
11.
ChenH.JiaoJ.YangN.WangX.-H. (2021). How identity conflict and identity synergy influence innovative performance of employees with multiple team membership. Psychological Reports, 124(2), 792–808. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120916863
12.
CrawfordE. R.ReevesC. J.StewartG. L.AstroveS. L. (2019). To link or not to link? Multiple team membership and unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000381
13.
CummingsJ. N.HaasM. R. (2012). So many teams, so little time: Time allocation matters in geographically dispersed teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 316–341. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.777
14.
DavisonR. B.HollenbeckJ. R. (2012). Boundary spanning in the domain of multiteam systems. In ZaccaroS. J.MarksM. A.DeChurchL. A. (Eds.), Multiteam systems (pp. 323–362). Routledge.
15.
de VriesT.van der VegtG.BundersonJ.WalterF.EssensP. (2022). Managing boundaries in multiteam structures: From parochialism to integrated pluralism. Organization Science, 33(1), 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1436
16.
DibbleR.GibsonC. B. (2018). Crossing team boundaries: A theoretical model of team boundary permeability and a discussion of why it matters. Human Relations, 71, 925–950. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717735372
17.
EdmondsonA. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
18.
EdmondsonA. C. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. John Wiley & Sons.
19.
EisenbergE. M.WittenM. G. (1987). Reconsidering openness in organizational communication. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 418–426. https://doi.org/10.2307/258509
20.
EndresM. L.ChowdhuryS. (2019). Team and individual interactions with reciprocity in individual knowledge sharing. In JennixM. E. (Ed.), Effective knowledge management systems in modern society (pp. 123–145). IGI Global.
21.
FarajS.YanA. (2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 604–617. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014367
22.
GibbsJ. L.RozaidiN. A.EisenbergJ. (2013). Overcoming the “ideology of openness”: Probing the affordances of social media for organizational knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12034
23.
HargadonA.BechkyB. A. (2006). The politics of knowledge work in a software development group. In ElsbachK. D. (Ed.), Qualitative Organizational Research (pp. 15–36). Information Age Publishing.
24.
HuffmanT.TracyS. J. (2018). Making claims that matter: Heuristics for theoretical and social impact in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(8), 558–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417742411
25.
KhvatovaT.BlockM. (2017). Exploring the role of task-related trust in intraorganizational knowledge sharing. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(2), 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1244908
26.
KimH.PilnyA. (2023). The use of enterprise social media and its disparate effects on the social connectivity of globally dispersed workers. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(2), 420–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419877233
27.
LiJ.YuanL.NingL.Li-YingJ. (2015). Knowledge sharing and affective commitment: The mediating role of psychological ownership. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(6), 1146–1166. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-2015-0043
28.
LoebbeckeC.van FenemaP. C.PowellP. (2016). Managing inter-organizational knowledge sharing. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 25(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2015.12.002
29.
LucianoM. M.DeChurchL. A.MathieuJ. E. (2018). Multiteam systems: A structural framework and meso-theory of system functioning. Journal of Management, 44(3), 1065–1096. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315601184
MarksM. A.DeChurchL. A.MathieuJ. E.PanzerF. J.AlonsoA. (2005). Teamwork in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 964–971. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.964
32.
MarroneJ. A. (2010). Team boundary spanning: A multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. Journal of Management, 36(4), 911–940. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309353945
33.
MathieuJ. E.MarksM. A.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). Multi-team systems. In AndersonN.OnesD. S.SinangilH. K.ViswesvaranC. (Eds.), International handbook of work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, p. 289–313). Sage.
34.
MathieuJ. E.LucianoM. M.DeChurchL. A. (2018). Multiteam systems: The next chapter. In OnesD. S.AndersonN.ViswesvaranC.SinangilH. K. (Eds.), The handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 333–353). Sage.
35.
MellJ. N.DeChurchL. A.LeendersR. T. A.ContractorN. (2020). Identity asymmetries: An experimental investigation of social identity and information exchange in multiteam systems. Academy of Management Journal, 63(5), 1561–1590. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0325
36.
MortensenM. (2014). Constructing the team: The antecedents and effects of membership model divergence. Organization Science, 25(3), 909–931. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0881
37.
MortensenM.HaasM. R. (2018). Perspective—Rethinking teams: From bounded membership to dynamic participation. Organization Science, 29(2), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0881
38.
MortensenM.WoolleyA. W.O’LearyM.B. (2007). Conditions enabling effective multiple team membership. In CrowstonK.SieberS.WynnE. (Eds.), Virtuality and Virtualization, (pp. 215–228). Springer.
39.
O'LearyM. B.MortensenM.WoolleyA. W. (2011). Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. The Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 461–478. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.61031807
40.
O'LearyM. B.WoolleyA. W.MortensenM. (2012). Multiteam membership in relation to multiteam systems. In ZaccaroS. J.MarksM. A.DeChurchL. A. (Eds.), Multiteam systems: An organization form for dynamic and complex environments (pp. 141–172). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
41.
PiercyC. W.HanM.EndacottC. (2026). Brokering work relationships: Exploring the tie management process in the workplace. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884251413682
42.
PluutH.FlesteaA. M.CurşeuP. L. (2014). Multiple team membership: A demand or resource for employees?Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18(4), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000016
43.
PutnamL. L.FairhurstG. T.BanghartS. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421
44.
QuX.LiuX. (2021). How can creative ideas be implemented? The roles of leader performance-prove goal orientation and boundary-spanning strategy. Creativity Research Journal, 33(4), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419/2021/1943135
45.
RappD. J.HugheyM.KreinerG. E. (2021). Boundary work as a buffer against burnout: Evidence from healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(8), 1169–1187. https://doi.org/10.1037/ap10000951
46.
RishaniM.SchoutenM. E.HoeverI. J. (2024). Navigating multiple team membership: A review and redirection of its influence on effectiveness outcomes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 18(1), e12899. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12899
47.
SandersR. E.BonitoJ. A. (2010). Speaking for the institution: A fourth production site for group members’ influence attempts. Small Group Research, 41(4), 427–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410366309
48.
SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223
49.
TracyS. J. (2019). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons
50.
van de BrakeH. J.van der VegtG. S.EssensP. J. M. D. (2024). More than just a number: Different conceptualizations of multiple team membership and their relationships with emotional exhaustion and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(5), 714–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001168
51.
van de BrakeH. J.WalterF.RinkF. A.EssensP. J. M. D.van der VegtG. S. (2020). Multiple team membership and job performance: The role of employees’ information-sharing networks. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93, 967–987. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12326
52.
WickramasingheV.NandulaS. (2015). Diversity in team composition, relationship conflict and team leader support on globally distributed virtual software development team performance. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal, 8(2/3), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/SO-02-2015-0007
53.
WimmerJ.BackmannJ.HoeglM. (2019). In or out? Exploring the inconsistency and permeability of team boundaries. Small Group Research, 50(6), 699–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419851842
54.
WittenbaumG. M.HollingsheadA. B.BoteroI. C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71(3), 286–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000299894
55.
WuX.HuangW.JiangJ.KleinG.LiuS. (2020). Boundary buffering: Limiting interference and information leakage in design teams. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40(3), 293–313. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2019-0180
56.
YoonK.KnightK.MartinD. (2019). Deceiving team members about competence: Its motives and consequences. Western Journal of Communication, 83(2), 210–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2018.1470252
57.
YoonK.PiercyC. W.KimY. J.ZhuY. (2024). Boundary work and Transactive Memory Systems in teams: Moderating effects of the visibility affordance. Management Communication Quarterly, 38(2), 359–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189231192078
