This study examines the benefits and disadvantages of individuals' multiple team membership and explores the moderating role of organizational tenure in this relationship. Multiple team membership refers to individuals' participation in multiple teams simultaneously. While previous research has shown mixed findings regarding the outcomes of multiple team membership, little is known about the role of organizational tenure in shaping these outcomes. Drawing on social exchange theory and role theory, this study proposes that organizational tenure can moderate the relationship between multiple team membership and its outcomes. The study employs a quantitative research design and collects data from employees in various organizations. The results indicate that individuals' multiple team membership can lead to both positive and negative outcomes, such as increased task diversity and coordination challenges. However, the relationship between multiple team membership and outcomes is contingent upon organizational tenure, with longer-tenured employees experiencing different benefits and disadvantages compared to shorter-tenured employees. The findings contribute to the understanding of the complexities associated with multiple team membership and provide insights into the role of organizational tenure in shaping the outcomes of individuals' participation in multiple teams.

Multiple team membership, organizational tenure, benefits

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634-665.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741-763.

Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599-627.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124.

Mathieu, J. E., Marks, M. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A comprehensive model of team effectiveness. In M. A. West (Ed.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working (pp. 31-49). John Wiley & Sons.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321-1339.

Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1-37.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.

West, M. A. (2000). Reflexivity, revolution, and innovation in work teams. In M. A. West (Ed.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 251-276). John Wiley & Sons.

Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. (2001). The nature of organizational leadership: An introduction. In S. J. Zaccaro & R. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today’s leaders (pp. 3-16). Jossey-Bass.