Invited Presentation for 2004
ICIS SIG-CORE Workshop
Catherine Durnell Cramton
George Mason University
December 12, 2004
1
A Major Theme
Multiple Perspectives
Perspective-Taking
That they exist
Consequences if you don’t
How they differ
Consequences if you do
Why they exist and differ
Who does perspective-taking,
who doesn’t, and why
The consequences
Perspectives most difficult to access
(systems perspective)
Systems Perspective
The Mutual Knowledge Problem
and Its Consequences (OS, 2001)
What I learned
What next?




Maintaining mutual knowledge
central challenge of distributed
work
Problems: Distribution of
information, understanding of
remote situations, interpretation
of information, time lags
Consequences: Different
realities, subgroup formation,
conflict, inaccurate attributions,
no learning



Prove that dispositional
attribution is exacerbated
Find out exactly why and how
subgroups form
Include international and crosscultural considerations
Examine system dynamics
more carefully
Subgroup Faultlines in
Internationally Distributed Teams:
Ethnocentrism or Learning?
Catherine Cramton, George Mason U.
Pamela Hinds, Stanford U.
Funded by NSF collaborative grants #IIS-0219754
and #IIS-0220098
5
Observed States
Subgroup formation and escalating “us
vs. them” conflict (Armstrong & Cole, 1995;
Cramton, 1997, 2001)
Team adaptation and learning
(Brannen & Salk, 2000; Salk & Brannen, 2000; Salk &
Shenkar, 2001)
6
Subgroup Faultlines in Internationally
Distributed Teams (ROB, 2004)
• Institutional or Social Support
• Equal Status
• Cooperative Interdependence
Information
Sharing
Motivation to
Engage Across
Differences
•Inclusive Communication
•Sharing of Context
Mutual
Positive
Distinctivenes
s
Degree of Alignment
(Faultline)
1a
Attribute
Composition
2b
Cross-National
Learning
1c
4b
Capability on
Future Teams
4a
Geographic
Distribution
Subgroup
Salience
2a
1b
Subgroup
Ethnocentrism
3
Team
Effectiveness
5
Activating
Event
7
Study Design 2003
Western Europe
3 teams
3 teams
India
U.S.
3 + 3 teams
8
Study Design 2004
Japan
Western Europe
1-2 teams
3 teams
3 teams
1-2 teams
India
U.S.
3 + 3 teams
9
Multi-Cultural Research Team
2
1
1
1
1
White American women
Indian man (4 languages)
White European woman (3 languages)
African woman (5 languages)
Japanese man (multiple languages)
10
Data Collection
 181 ethnographic interviews, 12 teams, 2 companies
(Summer 2003)
 12 person weeks concurrent observation of 6 teams
(Summer-Fall 2003)
 Team performance survey (Fall 2003, Fall 2004)
 Follow-up interviews. Initial interviews on Japanese
legs of triangle (Fall 2004)
11
Concurrent Observation Design
Western Europe
2 teams
2 teams
India
U.S.
2 teams
12
Data Analysis
 Feedback to companies and participants
 Open coding
 Check for interviewer and reader group
membership effects
 Team level analysis
Topic specific coding
13
Papers In Preparation
• Institutional or Social Support
• Influence Dynamics
• Cooperative Interdependence
• Inclusive Communication
• Sharing of Context
Information
Sharing
Motivation to
Engage Across
Differences
Mutual
Positive
Distinctivenes
s
Degree of Alignment
(Faultline)
1a
Attribute
Composition
2b
Cross-National
Learning
4b
1c
Capability on
Future Teams
4a
Geographic
Distribution
Subgroup
Salience
2a
1b
Subgroup
Ethnocentrism
3
Team
Effectiveness
5
Activating
Event
14