Creating Significant Cross-Functional Leadership Development Opportunities: An “Ecological” Approach Andrew Pueschel, Ohio University David Bayless, Ohio University Katherine Hartman, Ohio University

Creating Significant Cross-Functional Leadership Development Opportunities: An “Ecological” Approach

Andrew Pueschel Ohio University

David Bayless Ohio University

Katherine Hartman Ohio University

Abstract

Although extant research suggests experience with cross-functional teams is suggested to maximize student leadership development, there are challenges to implementing cross-functional teams in an academic learning environment. This study examines the effectiveness of a sustainability-focused, semester-long, course-based learning experience that integrated students across academic colleges. As compared to students not participating in a cross-functional experience, the results suggest students self-reported greater confidence in the development of leadership skills. The discussion offers suggestions for designing cross-functional team engagement opportunities for students.

Keywords: Leadership development, business education, experiential learning

Introduction

At a time when students are unable to see the need or the benefits of working in crossdisciplinary teams, there is a need for an explanation for why these models are best practices in

the professional arena. This study integrated a series of experiential learning modules to prime students for leadership growth through communication, conflict management, and strategic leadership training. By introducing participants to these concepts through experiential learning modules, this study analyzed to what levels, students can become more aware of the ability they possess to achieve new heights in their leadership development personally. The purpose of the study was to explore the effects of cross-functional leadership teams on engineering students’ self-assessment, leadership knowledge and skillsets, and confidence in academic abilities.

Literature Review

There is a body of literature regarding the need for students to learn to work more effectively with other disciplines within a business structure to attain project success. Whether espoused through visionary calls (National Academy of Engineering, 2004) or compilation of industrial feedback (ASEE, 2013), it is generally accepted that engineers need “soft” skill development to succeed in team environments in the “real world.” Some efforts have either documented the need for the development of skills necessary to work in cross-functional teams or methods to address the development of such skills, but not explicitly engaged in a crossfunctional or multi-disciplinary team effort. Extant research argues that engineering students need to learn to work with other disciplines in business environments (e.g., Shuman et al., 2005; Froyd et al., 2012; Summers et al., 2004; Teichmann et al., 2013; Khalid et al., 2013; Rogers, & Freuler, 2015). While there are dozens of other studies, these works were used as the basis for the justification for using a cross-functional team format. Prior research describes methods of interfacing students with business concepts, business student teams, or co-curricular activities (Ezekoye et al., 2002; Fisher et al., 2014; Siller et al., 2009; Frank, 2018; Rosales et al., 2016). However, the cited literature establishes that it is possible to help engineering students learn aspects of successful teamwork with students in other disciplines. Yet, the literature also reveals a pain-point – the diverse nature of such teams may lead to a rapid breakdown if effective leadership is not employed (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2000). With cross-functional teams becoming more widespread and critical to success in addressing issues that cannot be solved within corporate silos (Holland, S., Gaston, K. & Gomes, J., 2000), challenges are also becoming more evident including documented widespread dysfunction

(Tabrizi, 2015). Dysfunction may be a result of (a) team members answering to both the crossfunctional team and their functional department, which may or may not compete for resources),(b) diverse ideas leading to a breakdown in communications, and (c) high-achievers who may feel disenfranchised from the team when competing ideas are selected over their ideas. For this work, a cross-functional team is defined as a group with different functional (or discipline) expertise working with a high degree of interdependence toward a common goal to address a challenge that crosses departmental boundaries. This definition is an amalgamation of several works focusing on how to build successful business models through more effective use of cross-functional teams (Krajewski & Ritzman, 2005; Figliuolo, 2019.) While this literature provided insight into the roles and functionality of cross-functional teams, the final definition was crafted through discussion with Russ College of Engineering alumni leaders that were stakeholders in the EcoChallenge program. These alumni noted the value of using crossfunctional teams to stimulate innovation, to create consensus on direction, to enhance cross-unit communication and alignment of purpose, cut through barriers that inhibit product development, improve accountability for action, and develop leadership skills within an organization. Crossfunctional teams are widely recognized as a valuable and strategic tool for bringing new ideas and products into the marketplace by cutting through obstacles that tend to inhibit innovation (Holland et al., 2000). While it has been found that experience with cross-functional teams is necessary for students to grasp the need to develop skills that will allow such teams to succeed (Sundheim & Asquith, 2010; Bhavnani & Aldridge, 2000), the challenges to implementing a significant learning activity using a cross-functional team experience is non-trivial. Business and engineering schools have different expected outcomes, accreditation, and assessment criteria. One successful example of integrating business and engineering students in an assessed (graded) class using cross-functional teams that is focused on delivering a tangible outcome is the EPICS program at Purdue (Cummings et al., 2013). Yet, there are challenges to implement a similar model in an environment where curricular ‘crossing of boundaries’ is not embraced. How can a sustainability-focused, semester-long, course-based learning experience that integrates students across academic colleges be used to help students develop leadership skills?

The ECO Challenge

The ECO Challenge, a semester-long cross-disciplinary applied leadership project, is a select program where the outstanding student leaders of an engineering college, business college, and scholars program engage in identifying and solving sustainability issues. Focusing on the campus or the geographical region near campus, ECO Challenge students identify sustainability issues, determine which issue to focus on as a team, envision a solution to the problem, engage stakeholders to clarify the vision, and present a business pitch for the refined solution to a panel of experts who will assess the quality of the pitch and the solution. Participants in the ECO Challenge were the subjects of this study. The following sections describe the methodology and the results of the study itself.

Methodology

Data were collected from respondents using an online survey using Qualtrics. All respondents were full-time, undergraduate students enrolled in a state university in the Midwestern United States. Respondents were invited to participate in the survey through email and in-class announcements. Data were collected toward the end of the semester. All responses

were anonymous. All respondents were enrolled in a third-year management course focused on practical applications of leadership knowledge and skills. Sample 1 (n = 20) respondents were students enrolled in a traditional, lecture-based section in which students worked informally in teams during face-to-face class meetings. Sample 1 respondents did not participate in a formalized cross-functional team.

By comparison, sample 2 (n = 22) respondents were enrolled in a section of the same course that also partnered with students enrolled in another course outside of the college to work in formalized, cross-functional teams throughout the semester. Students were organized into cross-functional teams and participated in a series of skill development workshops throughout the semester.

Sample 1 (non-cross-functional teams) included business majors (50%), communication majors (35%), education majors (5%), and other majors (10%). Sample 2 (cross-functional teams) included business majors (27%), engineering majors (50%), communication majors

(13%), education majors (5%), and other majors (5%). Survey questions for both samples included seven questions about confidence in leadership knowledge and skills, as well as three demographic questions. For respondents participating in cross-functional teams, the survey also included five questions about confidence in working with teams. Average survey response time was less than five minutes (M= 290 seconds, SD= 149 seconds). Data used for the analysis included seven self-reported measures about confidence in leadership knowledge and skills that prior research has indicated as important to cross-functional team success: 1) defining key factors and issues, 2) demonstrating leadership practice, 3) developing leadership skills, 4) identifying outcomes, 5) presenting an analysis of leadership strategies, 6) constructing leadership arguments, and 7) designing leadership practices. Each item was measured using a five-point scale from very unconfident (1) to very confident (5). Separately, the seven-item scale demonstrated good reliability for sample 1 (α = .92) and sample 2 (α = .96). Combining both samples, the seven-item scale was also highly reliable (α = .95).

Results

Prior to the study, students who participated in cross-functional teams were expected to self-report stronger confidence in leadership knowledge and skills as compared to students who did not participate in cross-functional teams. To test for differences between students who participated in the cross-functional teams and students who did not, mean differences for each of the seven items measuring leadership knowledge and skills were analyzed using independent sample t-tests. Mean scores for each item and a composite (average) confidence score were compared between sample 1 and sample 2. The results suggested that all mean differences were significant (p < .05), where the average self-reported confidence in leadership knowledge and skills was higher for respondents who participated in a cross-functional team as compared to those who did not.

Mean difference effect sizes were analyzed using Cohen’s d. All effect sizes were moderate (d range: 0.69 – 0.77) to large (d range: 1.02 – 1.35). Effect sizes were moderate for three items: confidence in respondents’ ability to demonstrate leadership practices (t(40) = 2.24, p < .05, d = 0.69), to identify outcomes (t(40) = 2.35, p < .05, d = 0.72), and to develop leadership skills (t(40) = 2.50, p < .05, d = 0.77). Effect sizes were large for four items:

confidence in respondents’ ability to define key factors and issues relevant to effective strategic leadership in practice (t(40) = 3.36, p < .01, d = 1.03), to present an analysis of leadership strategies (t(40) = 4.40, p < .01, d = 1.35), to construct leadership arguments through analysis and research (t(40) = 3.30, p < .01, d = 1.02), and to design strategic leadership practices to achieve results (t(40) = 3.68, p < .01, d = 1.13). Table 1 provides the results associated with the seven areas identified as important to cross-functional team success.

Discussion

Our findings suggest that the overall experience of the ECO Challenge helped to advance the leadership development skills of those who participated, since the reporting of ability for skills was higher for respondents who participated in a cross-functional team as compared to those who did not. Within the program, there is a chance that students will be assigned to teams in which their leadership skills will be tested more rigorously than others because the quality of the work ethic and ability of each student may vary by individual. While the results indicated that participants reported higher confidence in the seven areas of importance to cross-functional team success, this outcome is logical given that the ECO Challenge was created to enhance the opportunities for individuals to increase their professional abilities in a team-based setting. Best practices for maximizing leadership development strategies and tactics through the ECO Challenge have been organically formalized, due to the strong levels of yearly participation from students, as well as the desire of the institution’s administration and program sponsor to enhance the experience for all stakeholders involved continuously. Workshops on executive presence, stakeholder communication, and project management help to bridge gaps in learning between the disciplines, as well as motivate participants through a common purpose. Activities such as team effectiveness, conflict management, and ideation through brainstorming break down stereotypes and inspire collaboration at various levels. Originally conceived as an idea created to help spark an interest in cross-disciplinary professional development, the ECO Challenge has become a publicly attended event in which thought leaders and topical stakeholders participated in each year (see appendix A for the program’s project timeline).

Limitations and Future Study

While its generalizability is limited by sample size and type of population, the study can be easily replicated to include a wide variety of participants in both educational and professional settings. The study could inspire longitudinal research because the ECO Challenge is an annual event in which data can be collected and compared over time. The self-reporting of the data by the students can also serve as a limitation of this study. As participants often realistically perceive their social environment (Balzer & Sulsky, 1992; Funder et al., 1995; Murphy et al., 1993; Spector, 1994), self-reported data are useful for understanding the participants’ psychological experience. As such, the biases might not be as strongly limited as initially thought. The study could inspire longitudinal research since the ECO Challenge is an annual event in which data can be collected and compared over time. Such data could yield additional insights into the impact on leadership development via 1) gender differences, 2) instructor effectiveness, 3) specific majors, 4) concentrations outside business and engineering, 5) homogeneous vs. heterogeneous teams, and 6) virtual vs. face-to-face training.

Conclusion

While many students question the importance of learning in team settings, let alone in cross-disciplinary environments, Sundheim and Asquith (2010) remind us that these experiences support leadership development. This study contributes to the literature by examining the effectiveness of leadership skill development within the ECO Challenge, which was a semester-long cross-disciplinary applied leadership project that integrated students from a diverse sampling across campus to identify and solve sustainability issues. Overall, skills were higher for respondents who participated in a cross-functional team, as compared to those who did not. Results indicate that seven areas in which confidence levels increase the most within cross-function team interaction, specifically 1) defining key factors and issues, 2) demonstrating leadership practice, 3) developing leadership skills, 4) identifying outcomes, 5) presenting an analysis of leadership strategies, 6) constructing leadership arguments, and 7) designing leadership practices. The practical and managerial implications of this study underscore the success of utilizing professional development training-based learning experiences that integrate

employees from across an organization. Programs like the ECO Challenge can strengthen the effectiveness of future teams in organizations, as well as positively impact managers’ assignment of cross-disciplinary roles. Therefore, the workforce benefits from knowing that issue definition, analysis, and research, and the designing of strategic leadership practices to achieve results can be enhanced through multi-disciplinary team interaction.

Author Biographies

Dr. Andrew Pueschel is an Assistant Professor of Instruction in the Management Department of the College of Business at Ohio University and Director of the Emerging Leaders Program in the Robert D. Walter Center for Strategic Leadership. His research interests include leading for wellness, positivity, leadership, organizational behavior, and culture change. Dr. David Bayless is the Gerald Loehr Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Ohio University where he is the Director of the Center for Algal Engineering Research and Commercialization (an Ohio Third Frontier Wright Project) focusing on the energy and environmental technology creation. Dr. Katherine Hartman is the Fox Associate Professor and Chair of the Marketing Department in the College of Business at Ohio University. She teaches marketing strategy, marketing research, and consumer behavior. Her research interests include assessment, accreditation, problem-based learning, general education, and intercultural competency.

References

ASEE, (2013). Transforming undergraduate education of engineers—Phase 1: Synthesizing and integrating industry perspectives. American Society of Engineering Education, Washington DC. Balzer, W. K., & Sulsky, L. M. (1992). Halo and performance appraisal research: A critical examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 975-985. Bhavnani, S. H., & Aldridge, M. D. (2000). Teamwork across disciplinary borders: A bridge between college and the work place. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(1), 13-16. Cummings, A., Huff, J., Oakes, W., & Zoltowski, C. (2013). An assessment approach to project-based service learning. Proceedings of the 120th Annual ASEE Conference, Atlanta, GA, paper 7121. Ezekoye, O.A., Patil, T.S., Nichols, S., Butler, J.S., & Doggett, J. (2002). Development of business skills in engineering students through collaborative engineering-business school activities. Proceedings of the 109th Annual ASEE Conference, Montreal, Canada. Figliuolo, M. (2019). Managing a cross-functional team, LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/learning/managing-a-cross-functional-team/what-is-a-crossfunctional-team

Fisher, D.R., Bagiati, A., & Sarma, S. (20114). Fostering 21st-century skills in engineering undergraduates through co-curricular involvement. Proceedings of the 121st Annual ASEE Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana, Paper 9561. Frank, K. (2018). New program combines engineering and business to meet industry needs. https://engineering.osu.edu/news/2014/01/new-program-combines-engine Froyd, J., Wankat, P., & Smith, K. (2012). Five major shifts in 100 years of engineering education. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100, 1344-1360. Funder, D.C., Kolar D.C., & Blackman, M.C. (1995). Agreement among judges of personality: Interpersonal relations, similarity, and acquaintanceship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 656-672. Holland, S., Gaston, K., & Gomes, J. (2000). Critical success factors for cross-functional

teamwork in new product development. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(3), 231-259. Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. C. (2000). Cross-functional dynamics in new product development. Research-Technology Management, 43(1), 46-49. Khalid, A., Chin, C., Atiqullah, M., Sweigart, J., Stutzmann, B., Zhou, W. (2013). Building a better engineer: The importance of humanities in engineering curriculum. Proceedings of the 120th Annual ASEE Conference, Atlanta, GA, paper 6052. Krajewski, L. J., & Ritzman, L.P. (2005). Operations management: Processes and value chains. Pearson Education, 7th Edition. Murphy, K. R., Jako, R. A., & Anhalt, R. L. (1993). Nature and consequences of halo error: A critical analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 218-225. National Academy of Engineering, (2004). The Engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Rogers, P., & Freuler, R. (2015). The T-shaped engineer. Proceedings of the 122nd Annual ASEE Conference, Seattle, Paper 11576. Rosales, A., Leland, A., Notoros, O., Toftness, R., Siller, T., De Miranda, M., Cook, A., Reese, M., Bryne, Z., Weston, J., & Maciejewski, A. (2016). Preliminary work on weaving professionalism throughout the engineering curriculum, Proceedings of the 123rd Annual ASEE Conference, New Orleans, LA, Paper 16532. Shuman, L. J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & Mcgourty, J. (2005). The ABET “professional skills” – Can they be taught? Can they be assessed? Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 4155.

Siller, T., Rosales, A., Haines, J., & Benally, A. (2009). Development of undergraduate students’ professional skills. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 135(3), 102-108. Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 385-392. Summers, M., Davis, B., & Tovic, C. (2004). When engineering and technology skills are not enough: Engineering leaders out of their element, Proceedings of the 2004 CIEC Conference, Biloxi, MS, Paper ETD 342-1.

Sundheim, N., & Asquith, J. (2010) First-year cross-functional design teams: Engineering and business. 2010 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Washington, DC, pp. T4E-1-T4E-6.

Teichmann, M., Parts, V., Kerikmäe, T., Murdvee, M., & Pevkur, A. (2013). A Heuristic model of non-technical competences for engineers. Recent Advances in Educational Methods; Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Engineering Education (EDUCATION '13), 40-49. Tabrizi, B. (2015) 75% of cross-functional teams are dysfunctional. Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2015/06/75-of-cross-functional-teams-are-dysfunctional

Table 1

Confidence in Leadership Differences using t-tests Equality of Means

Sample 1 Sample 2 Measurement Item M SD M SD t-test Cohen’s d

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. Define key factors and issues 3.65 0.88 4.45 0.67 3.36** 1.03 Demonstrate leadership practices 3.65 0.99 4.32 0.95 2.24* 0.69 Develop leadership skills 3.75 0.91 4.41 0.80 2.50* 0.77 Identify outcomes 3.80 1.01 4.41 0.67 2.34* 0.72 Present analysis of leadership 3.25 1.02 4.41 0.67 4.40** 1.35

strategies

Construct leadership arguments 3.20 0.95 4.14 0.89 3.30** 1.02

Design leadership practices 3.25 0.97 4.23 0.75 3.68** 1.13 Composite (average) confidence 3.51 0.79 4.34 0.70 3.61** 1.11

* p < .05; ** p < .01

APPENDIX A

Project Timeline

Date Activity or Deadline

August 29 ECO Challenge Kick off September 12 Team selection and formation. September 17 Preliminary ideas presented to faculty September 19 Teams will submit their ideas for problems to be solved in 2-3 minute pitches. (PowerPoint with video submission) September 24 Review of projects with sustainability leaders and facilities experts from the campus to help teams connect to resources. Discussion of ROI analysis parameters. Report on stakeholder engagement and questions to be answered. October 8 Preliminary project report including ROI milestone ROI analysis based on breakeven time with cash flow IRR analysis using Excel with cash flow and capital expenditures for three years Discuss how the financial data was obtained, including who was engaged Provide actual information or describe plans to provide the following

o o o o Description of the sustainability problem to be solved A description of your solution Details of the claimed benefits

Description of the implementation practicality and risk factors that could inhibit implementation and/or acceptance. This includes

Adequately addressing the concerns of the stakeholders Estimate of the impact the change could have on people, economic savings A list of possible stakeholders that would have to be engaged for funding/approval/buy-in October 10 Stakeholder communication with Dan Squiller. October 22 Executive coaching on providing pitches with Dr. Pueschel November 5 Project management with Dr. Bayless. November 7 Video of team dry run of the presentation. Feedback from Bayless, Pueschel,

and Squiller. Video (no more than twelve minutes, please) should cover the following

o o Description of the sustainability problem to be solved A description of your solution

o Details of the claimed benefits

Description of the implementation practicality and risk factors that could inhibit implementation and/or acceptance. This includes

o Adequately addressing the concerns of the stakeholders

o Estimate of the impact the change could have on people, economic savings

o A list of possible stakeholders that would have to be engaged for funding/approval/buy-in

November 13

Return on investment analysis both breakeven and three-year IRR Competition date – first round.  Each team will make a 10-15 minute pitch to describe their problem and their envisioned solution. November 20 Meet with faculty for a more detailed debrief with individual teams. December 4 Final round presentations for the prize