discussion
- Given the growth in telecommuting and other mobile work arrangements, how might offices physically change in the coming years? Will offices as we think of them today exist in the next ten years? Why or why not?
- Please make your initial post and two response posts substantive. A substantive post will do at least TWO of the following:
- Ask an interesting, thoughtful question pertaining to the topic
- Answer a question (in detail) posted by another student or the instructor
- Provide extensive additional information on the topic
- Explain, define, or analyze the topic in detail
- Share an applicable personal experience
- Provide an outside source (for example, an article from the UC Library) that applies to the topic, along with additional information about the topic or the source (please cite properly in APA)
- Make an argument concerning the topic.
- At least one scholarly source should be used in the initial discussion thread. Be sure to use information from your readings and other sources from the UC Library. Use proper citations and references in your post.
Technology A d o p tio n by
G lo b a l V ir tu a l Team
s
:
D e v e lo p in g a Cohesive
A pproac
h
W illia m J. Harris, University o f Maryland University College
International trade and collaboration continue to
expand in the development of products, services, and
interdependent-m arket activities. Such expansion
has resulted in an increase in global engineering
groups’ interaction across cultures. These groups
exist, in part, because technology now supports
geographically distributed organizations, which
allows them to improve perform ance and outcome.
However, in many instances, the cultural differences
among group members have become problematic in
their work (Clear, 2010; Nisbett, 2003). Both research
and practice have shown that these groups, and the
technology they use, may form working structures
that are incompatible with many culturally diverse
organizations. This essay explores and uncovers
pertinent issues and provides a conceptual framework
that will allow company managers to adopt technology
that is compatible across global virtual teams (GVT)
and organizations. The aim of this paper is to identify
implications and provide guidance to managers who
may be faced with designing and leading m ulti
national groups tasked with solving complex problems.
In short, this research will provide guidance to those
managers that will allow them to put theory into
practice.
Background and C ontext o f G lobal
V ir tu a l Teams
Global engineering teams in the public sector are
tasked to provide various capabilities for government
agencies. Contractors that serve various governmen
t
agencies and tasked to integrate global technical
capabilities employ many such teams. Often, groups
are formed without a physical presence as enabled
by technology (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014). These
engineering team members, being diverse both
in their fields of expertise and in their geographic
location, are expected to work and perform together,
fully exploiting their abilities and accumulation
of knowledge to design capabilities and/or resolve
unique problems (Pavlak, 2004). Often, these teams
are comprised of a variety of engineers from fields
such as software, hardware, systems, mechanical, and
other disciplines. For these teams, team work agility
and decision making are essential (Lowry, Schuetzler,
Giboney, & Gregory, 2015). An engineering team’s
advantage, then – as well as their challenge – is their
collective diversity and trem endous knowledge and
expertise (Harris, 2018).
Team tasking evolves from the first stage of
identifying a problem or requirements to creating
capabilities, introducing new features to existing
products, and then, through to production, technical
services, sustainment, and operations (Defense
Acquisition System, n.d.). The full lifecycle of a project,
whether creating products or providing technical
services, will eventually include the interchange of
ideas, design elements, and solution implem entation
for global team m embers (Harris, 2018).
Many requirements and problems that companies
encounter simply cannot be resolved in-house or at a
single country location; yet, their solutions are critical
4 SAM Advanced Management Journal – Volume 83 Edition 1
for these companies to launch a product, rectify issues
that arise, or sustain their businesses (Harris, 2018).
Moreover, international trade and collaboration have
continued to evolve, resulting in companies receiving
an increase of revenues from global operations
(Thomas, Beilin, Jules, 8c Lynton, 2014). And along
with these increased global opportunities and
international trade, the development of products and
services has expanded internationally and has become
more globally interdependent. Thus, engineering teams
are tasked to accomplish a variety of critical functions
across geographical boundaries (Thomas et al., 2014).
In as much, global virtual teams form and reform as
their tasking progresses or as a response to events that
unfold over the life cycle of a system or product (Clear,
2010). These engineering teams exist, in part, because
technology now supports geographically distributed
organizations, which allows them to effectively
communicate to improve perform ance and outcome
(Harris, 2018).
The Challenges o f Global Virtual Teams
As a result of this virtual environment, managers
of these teams are faced with efficiently providing
effective resources along with guiding teams through
the entire life-cycle process from determ ining
requirements through finding and implementing
solutions. These virtual teams rely on technology to
execute engineering processes, collaborate in their
activities, and to validate and share knowledge (Harris,
2018). Furtherm ore, these teams are often faced with
conflict and disagreement within their ranks yet must
still implement effective solutions (Lowry et al., 2015).
The project manager m ust be prepared to plan and
to coordinate effective resources to support the GVT.
Thus, the need to manage the adoption and use of
technology that supports the GVT to accomplish their
tasking is critical for successful outcomes (Harris,
2018).
Research has found, there are a num ber of cultural
challenges that these teams face based on their
diversity (Clear, 2010; Mejias, 1995; Thomas et
al., 2014). These challenges include bridging their
languages, cultures, time zones, experience, and so
forth – through effective management. This in itself
is not an easy task, as it requires a level of agility to
orchestrate and bridge those differences (Thomas et
al., 2014, p. 38). These groups are not always wholly
successful in this endeavor, and consequently, their
differences, be they cultural, linguistic, or logistical,
can become problematic (Nisbett, 2003). Because
these cross-cultural issues pose inherent problems in
the interaction of GVTs, they also form an im portant
com ponent of this research.
Inspite of the fact that these global teams may
be spread out geographically, they are nonetheless
expected to engage in collective behavior to solve
problems quickly, coordinate product design, initiate
start-up activities, brainstorm innovative solutions,
and perform other nonroutine functions. Gains in
technology that support these teams have increased
the expectations of their perform ance and abilities
to better manage interactions, share knowledge, and
predict outcomes. One such Advanced Information
Technology (AIT) designed to support these teams
is collaboration software (Coleman 8c Levine,
2008). The capabilities contained within this type
if software are available off the shelf, and they are
also configurable. Among these AIT technologies is
SharePoint enterprise software, which uses third-party
applications, such as BPM CRM. However, we must
not lose sight of the fact that people are as complex as
the systems they adopt. As such, adding the variable
of cultural differences among teams may com pound
tasking problems for virtual global groups (Clear, 2010;
Mejias, 1995). This study examines the issues faced by
organizations as they prepare to launch global teams
using AIT.
Companies and agencies that do business
internationally may run into unique problems with
political consequences. Harris (2018 p. 14) provided
a poignant example: For nearly 2 decades, both the
U.S. D epartm ent of Defense (DOD) and NASA have
used the Russian RD-180 rocket motors for the heavy
lift Atlas V rocket to resupply the International Space
Station and for launching military satellites (Dilanian,
2016). In order to use this Russian rocket motor,
the U.S. military contracts with the United Launch
Alliance (a joint venture between defense contractors
Boeing and Lockheed Martin; Dilanian, 2016). Yet,
this practice is particularly problematic given the
adversarial nature of US/Russian relations (e.g., their
opposing roles in Syria and the Ukraine). Thus, when
a failure occurs, as it did during the 2016 Cygnus
OA-6 International Space Station’s resupply (“By the
Numbers: How Close Atlas V Came to Failure,” 2016),
both countries put together tiger teams to perform
failure analysis to determ ine the root cause. One can
easily see that a failure of one country’s product may
become exploitive political news overnight, regardless
SAM A d vanced M a n a g e m e n t Journal – Volum e 83 Edition 1 5
of sound engineering and business operations.
Regardless of the situation, GVTs come together
with specific tasks, goals, and objectives to achieve
outcomes for unique problems; they accept difficult
challenges and ultimately are able to achieve acceptable
outcomes (Harris, 2018). Not surprisingly, putting
together these teams and then supporting them is a
problem global managers frequently face, especially
when unanticipated critical issues arise that must
be addressed w ithin a short am ount of time (Harris,
2018). In other words, the ability of a company
operating globally to successfully operate across
country and cultural boundaries is only viable if the
company’s m anagement is able to solve difficult and
sometimes time-sensitive problems – whilst satisfying
global stakeholders.
Advanced Information Technology’s Role and New
Social Norms
The late 1950s and early 1960s saw the advent
and proliferation of computers, which enhanced
the scientific technology revolution (Harris, 2018).
And as part of this information revolution, both
routine and nonroutine activities were improved
upon by the use of technology by teams (Geels &
Kemp, 2007). Then in the early 1980s, technology
advancements progressed once again, fully developing
the inform ation digital revolution, which continues
today (Brynjolfsson 8c McAfee, 2014). W hat were
once localized hardware platforms with dependent
software-supporting engineering functions have given
way to ubiquitous applications compatible with a
variety of devices that support global group interaction
(Brynjolfsson 8c McAfee, 2014). These group support
technical capabilities have led to expanded and new
social com m unication norms. In fact, a new form of
sociology – digital sociology (Lupton, 2015) – has
emerged to address hum an interaction with both
computer-based group support tools and today’s
social media. Thus, as technology has advanced,
so, too, have m ethods of com m unication and team
production (Harris, 2018). These phenom ena have
resulted in a shift in social interaction, bringing forth
new concepts in sociology in-step with group support
technologies that impact the way GVT’s communicate
to accomplish their tasking: digital sociology (Lupton,
2015).
Research Q uestion
The exploratory research question presented below
is designed to drive this systematic study, as will
perm it identification and examination of emerging
themes and relationships, which will ultimately allow
conclusive findings that will inform managers of GVTs.
These findings will provide insight for both researchers
and practitioners into the m anagement of global
virtual teams and the adoption of support technology.
To that end, the following research question forms the
context and drives this research:
W hat specific issues do global problem-solving teams
face when adopting advanced inform ation technology
(AIT) for collaborative support?
L ite ra tu re Review
Whereas the adoption of technology by groups
within singular cultures has been thoroughly
researched for over 3 decades (Nikas & Poulymenakou,
2008, p. 1; Turban, Liang, & Wu, 2011, pp. 140-
141), literature on the adoption of technology to
support global teams across cultures is not as prolific.
Drawing from eight sources (see Appendix B), this
literature review addresses major themes and issues
with supportive evidence. The eight sources are
conventionally identified in the reference section with
a preceding *. First, theoretical underpinnings are
considered, covering concepts on group interaction
and structured adaptation of technology for
m ultinational groups. The eight articles that support
the major topics explored herein, which include both
scholarly and “gray literature,” are then addressed.
Theoretical Underpinnings for Group Interaction
and Technology Adoption
This researcher identified two prim ary theories
upon which collective group behavior in the adoption
of technology can be understood. These theories are
Hofstede’s theory, which provides a model of cultural
differentiation (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede, Van Deusen,
Mueller, Sc Charles, 2002), and adaptive structural
theory (AST; DeSanctis & Poole, 1994; DeSanctis et al.,
2008; Gopal, Bostrom, & Chin, 1993).
Hofstede’s theory: Model o f cultural
differentiation. Three of the selected studies
(Davidson & fordan, 1998; Mejias, 1995; Paul,
Samarah, Seetharaman, & Mykytyn, 2005) specifically
based their conclusions on Hofstede’s (1980) seminal
research on the cultural differences of global teams. In
the early 1980s, Hofstede researched and identified the
collective characteristics of countries and their cultures
based on data gathering research from 53 countri
es
6 SAM Advanced M anagement Journal – Volume 83 Edition 1
and 116,000 respondents. Hofstede discovered that
there are five dimensions in cultural differentiation:
Power-Distance, Uncertainty-Avoidance,
Individualism-Collectivism, Masculinity-Femininity,
and Tim e-Orientation. In Mejias’s study (1995), the
author referred to four out of five of the dimensions
described in Hofstede’s cultural differentiation model:
“Cultural differentiation described four dimensions
of national culture along which value systems may
vary…. [H]is Model of Cultural Differentiation
framework may be useful in hypothesizing specific
predictions of cultural tendencies” (pp. 56-69).
Davidson and Jordan (1998) and others have
concurred with Mejias’s assertion that the dimensions
of uncertainty avoidance and power distance have
the greatest influence in relating cultural aspects
of interdependent groups operating across cultural
boundaries. However, these dimensions also represent
the underlying characteristics of individualism
or collectivism, in varying degrees, for each of
Hofstede’s five dimensions (See Figure 1). Notably,
Paul et al. (2005. p. 190) viewed the fifth dimension
of individualism/collectivism as a dom inating aspect
across the power distance and uncertainty-avoidance
scheme. Here, Mejias (1995, pp. 59, 61) provides a apt
description of both power distance and uncertainty-
avoidance:
Power Distance describes the relationship and
relative distance between a supervisor and a
subordinate … the extent to which a particular
national culture accepts and recognizes the
unequal distribution of power and influence
in institutions and organizations. Countries
that score high on power distance appear to
emphasize autocratic or paternalistic, boss-
employee relations. In these countries the
powerful have more privileges over others….
Countries scoring low on Power Distance
favor participative management relations and
prefer the use of “equal rights” and legitimate
power over the use of coercive or referent
power. D uring group decision making, higher
status individuals are more likely to dominate
the group discussion and influence group
outcomes more than low status individuals.
Uncertainty-avoidance expresses the extent
to which members of a particular national
culture feel uncomfortable or threatened by
uncertain or unknow n outcomes (Hofstede,
1980, 1991). Countries that scored high on the
Uncertainty Avoidance dimension tended to
have a low tolerance for uncertainty (expressed
by higher levels of anxiety) and a greater need
for formal rules. Additionally, countries with
F ig u r e 1 . R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n U n v e r t a i n t y A v o id a n c e a n d P o w e r D is t a n c e
aj u c
as
– w
5
s –
5>
£ o
C
L
Uncertainty Avoidance
Low High
Family Model – clannish
Countries:
Southeast Asia, Singapore,
Hong Kong, India, Philippines
Pyramid Model – fiefdom
Countries:
Latin America, Mexico, Brazil, Chile,
Venezuela, Yugoslavia
Market Model – structure Machine Model – bureaucracy
Countries: Countries:
Anglo/Scandinavia, United States, Germanic, Israel, Austria
Australia, Canada, The Netherlands,
United Kingdom
SAM Advanced Management Journal – Volume 83 Edition 1 7
strong (high) Uncertainty Avoidance scores
also had less tolerance for people or groups
with deviant ideas or behavior and were more
likely to resist innovative ideas (Hofstede; 1980,
1991). Countries with weak or low Uncertainty
Avoidance scores were inclined to take more
risks and were more likely to tolerate deviant
behavior and innovative ideas when making
group decisions (Hofstede; 1980, 1991).
Figure 1 depicts the relationships between the
variables of power distance and uncertainty-avoidance
and the countries whose cultures align with each. In
sum, Hofstede’s theory is param ount in anticipating
cultural issues associated with multinational teams
as they come together to work.Figure 1. Hofstede’s
Regional/Countries Matrix of Cultural Differentiation
(Mejias, 1995, p. 66; Davidson & Jordan, 1998, p .41).
Adaptive structuration theory (AST). Giddens’s
(1984) original structuration work unified an approach
to social organization theory, resulting in a holistic
view of people acting together to achieve com m on
goals. In doing so, Giddens shifted the focus from the
individual to groups of actors who are knowledgeable
about the systems they produce and reproduce (Harris,
2016, p. 3). Adaptive structuration theory (AST)
expands upon Giddens’s theory that by incorporating
AIT as a com ponent of group activities (as proposed
by researchers, including Gopal et al., 1993, and
DeSanctis et al. 1994; 2008, p. 552), a unified AST
would result.
Harris’ (2016, p. 7) earlier research described the
relationships of groups and technology from an AST
perspective, finding: AST posits that the impacts
of AIT “on group and organization processes and
outcomes depend on the structures incorporated in
the technology and on the structures that emerge as
users attempt to adapt the technology to the tasks
at hand” (Poole, 2013, p. 22). DeSanctis and Poole’s
(1994) foundational description of AST first defines a
system as an observable pattern of relationships among
actors as part of a group. Structures are the rules and
resources that members employ in their activities
and interactions that give the system its pattern. As
members develop rules and resources from their tasks,
norms, and AIT, they enact and sustain structures
to make them part of an ongoing organization of a
system. In other words, groups produce and reproduce
rules and resources as they interact to accomplish
their tasking. As a result, AST posits the effects of
AIT on group processes and outcomes depend on the
structures incorporated w ithin technology (structural
potential) and the emergent (adaptive) structures that
form as members interact with the technology and
themselves over time (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994, pp.
22-23).
DeSanctis and Poole (1994) also describes how
AST works by identifying the two AIT structural
elements: spirit and features. Spirit being the general
intent with regards to values and goals of the specific
rules. Capabilities and usage rules make up structural
features of the technology… The result being a novel
structural ensemble tailored to the group’s n eed s… and
interactions (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994, pp. 22-23).
Harris (2016) also found that the components of
structural adaptations from the interactions of group
members with regard to appropriated AIT (depicted
in Figure 2) are segregated by input-process-output
functions. These elements (changing rules, resources,
group/technology products, and tasking environment)
dynamically come together during social interaction
(see center of Figure 2), appropriating and applying
ongoing influences of new and emerging structures.
Literature from four of the eight studies reinforces
the applicability of AST for this research. For example,
Watson (1994, pp. 47-48) noted that AST makes an
im portant distinction between system and structure:
“The system is a social entity such as a group …
structures are the norm s of behavior that maintain
the system” (p. 47). Nicolas-Rocca and Coulson
(2014, p. 83) then expanded upon AST with task-
technology-fit to build a framework that explains the
interrelationships of global virtual teams and their
functional abilities. Finally, Nikas and Poulymenakou
(2008, pp. 4-6) applied AST in their research on
adopting web-based collaboration technology to global
teams. Based on the studies of these researchers, AST
became a foundational theory for this paper.
Adopting Advanced Information Technology and
Features
Group support systems (GSS) are a form of AIT.
Watson’s (1994) early work informs us: “GSS is a
blend of technical and social facilities … and because
GSS design is often based on the customs of the
particular culture in which it was developed … both
technical and social features may need modification
for successful adoption” (p. 45). Davidson and
Jordan (1998, p. 44) provided research on technology
adoption for GSS as it relates to global teams with a
focus on barriers to adoption in cross-cultural settings.
SAM Advanced Managem ent Journal – Volume 83 Edition 18
Figure 2. Adaptive Structuration Theory Domain and IPO Diagram
I n p u t s P r o c e s s O u t p u t s
/
S tru c tu re o f Advanced
\
In fo rm a tio n Technoloev
• Features
V. Spirit (in te n d e d use) /
Task & E n v iro n m e n t
Structures
Task ty p e
S itu a tio n , ex pe c tation s
In te rn a l G ro up System
In d iv id u al preferences
In te ra c tio n
N o rm s, processes,
A IT fa c ilita tio n
G r o u p S o c i a l I n t e r a c t i o n
Tech A D o ro o riatio n GrouD Processes
* D e gre e o f Respect • Id e a g e n e ra tio n
* Faithfulness • P a rtic ip atio n
■ Consensus • D ec is io n -M a kin g
■ In s tru m e n ta l v a lue • C onflict M g t
• A IT A ttitu d e s • Influen ce
■ Ease o f use • Process M g t
_____ ■P
E m erg ent Sources of
Stru ctu re
A IT Products & O u tp u ts
Task Products &
O utp uts
Changes in E n viro n m en t
D ue to A IT Use
O utcom es
• Q u a lity o b je c tiv e
perceived
• Consensus
• C o m m itm e n t
• C onfidence in
Decisions
• Satisfaction w ith
O utcom es and
Process
Figure 2. Adaptive Structuration Theory Domain and IPO Diagram (DeSanctis et al., 2008, p. 555;
Gopal et al., 1993, p. 49)
Davidson and Jordan pointed out a num ber of failures
in adopting technology within these environments that
included mismatching software tools, lack of group
interrelations awareness, and insufficient experience in
facilitating the use of AIT (p. 39). These authors also
relied on Hofstede’s theory of cultural differentiation to
explain technology adoption across teams:
GSS may be used as a source of inspiration, but
its underlying assumptions should be tested
to see if they [technology features] fit with
local assumptions about how groups should
function. W here necessary, the assumptions
should be reconceptualised according to local
traditions.
A more recent study on adopting technology was
conducted by Nikas and Poulymenakou (2008).
Their study directly linked AST to the adoption and
adaptation of technology by global groups. These
authors also found that faithfully appropriating
technology (Figure 2) depends on task structures as
well as group social systems (e.g., norms, personal
preferences, facilitation).
Group support and collaboration systems have
dom inated AIT team based research for the past
30 years (Nicolas-Rocca & Coulson, 2014). At first,
technology emerged as stand-alone proprietary
software designed for specific hardware platforms.
These initial systems, which were predom inantly
used for record keeping, data analysis, and reporting,
were feature-limited. More complex systems evolved
that included high perform ance workstations rich
in features and information management, such as
AutoCAD® in the 1980s for engineering support.
Advancing in AIT for GSS now provide open access
cloud applications and social media, thereby advancing
capabilities in support of decision making and other
im portant group needs (Turban et al., 2011, p. 141).
W ithin enterprise support systems, automated
decision technologies include rule-based engines,
statistical or numeric algorithms, workflow
applications, and outcome prediction. Social software
capabilities, described as Collaboration 2.0-3.0, and
products such as SharePoint and SalesForce are
examples of enterprise GSS (Harris, 2016). In fact,
newer AIT features create collaborative platforms
that reflect the way knowledge work is naturally
SAM Advanced Management Journal – Volume 83 Edition 1 9
accomplished rather than adjusting behaviors around a
system (Harris, 2018; Nicolas-Rocca & Coulson, 2014;
Turban et al., 2011, p. 141).
Global Virtual Team Composition, Structure, and
Use o f Technology
Global virtual teams (GVT) have evolved into groups
that assemble using combinations of technology to
accomplish an organizations task (Paul et al., 2005,
p. 188; Tung & Turban, 1998, p. 177). GVTs are more
complex than traditional face-to-face. These teams
may be comprised of individuals with a collection of
differing skills and professions using tools specific to
their areas of expertise. Or, teams of like professions
are brought together to tackle a common issue within
their area. Both research and practice have shown that
both teams and technology structures change based
on ongoing influences (see Figure 2, AST diagram).
New structures emerge with the dynamic nature of
work that create new rules, thereby changing the tasks
and capabilities of both hum ans and machines. That
is, a multiphase project comprised of both people and
technology transform s as the tasks and environment
change. For example, Paul et al. (2005) linked bipolar
dimensions (see Figure 1) to group composition while
tying perform ance to Hofstede’s theory.
Team structure – centralization/decentralization.
The literature reviewed in this research concluded that
decentralization is a direct benefit of AIT, especially
as it relates to decision making. The studies reviewed
make a clear distinction between decision making and
control, as facilitated by AIT (Robey, 1977, p. 974).
Halal (2013) argued that it is essential to determine
which technology is best suited strategically for a
particular type of organization. As a result, Harris
(2018) found Halal (2013, p. 1640) established the
concept for understanding the impact of technology
on organization centralization or decentralization.
Robey (1977, p. 974) also concluded that AIT has
supported greater degrees of formal and informal
decentralization. For example, as explained by Harris
(2018): Robey (1977) claimed that AIT supports stable
environments, which are best suited to organizations
with central authority where routine operations are
the main focus. However, under dynamic conditions
(i.e., nonroutine operations), technology reinforces
decentralization (Robey, 1977, p. 974). Howeve
r,
Harris (2018) also found that Pheffer and Leblebici
(1977) came to a different conclusion, claiming that
technology supports centralization (personal control)
as a substitute for formalization. However, Pheffer and
Leblebici (1977) also found that technology supports
rapid environmental changes, which may result in
increasing and enabling decentralization (pp. 245-
246). Huber (1990, p. 57) took decision making one
step further, claiming that AIT provides a uniform
approach to decision making, acting as a decentralized
function for centralized organizations and visa versa.
Nault’s (1998, p. 1322) later work provided a more
detailed organizational application of technology,
asserting that it allows both centralized (hierarchy) and
decentralized (local market) decision support w ithin
the same organization.
Team structure – organization complexity.
Organization complexity is also a com m on theme
in the literature. An early empirical study viewed
knowledge work and technology complexity as
a systems functioning under uncertainty within
organizations (Hickson, Pugh, & Pheysey, 1969,
p. 380). Harris (2018) found in this earlier study,
Hickson et al. characterized technology complexity,
in relationship to organizations, by looking at the
num ber of exceptional cases encountered, the degree
of logical analysis, and how the inform ation was used
in workflow (p. 380). Robey (1977, p. 974) concluded
that the structure of an organization does not depend
upon any type of technology, “but rather the nature
of the task environment,” inferring complexity. Pfeffer
and Leblebici (1977, p. 248) added to the organization
complexity discussion by submitting that technology is
positively associated with both vertical and horizontal
differentiation within organizations, as this allows “the
manager to control and coordinate more complex,
differentiated organizations” (Pfeffer & Leblebici, 1977,
p. 247).
Harris (2018) also found that Burton and Obel (1998,
p. 236) presented propositions specifically addressing
highly complex environments with nonroutine
technology in large organizations, DeSanctis and
Poole (1994, p. 143) looked at emerging technology,
finding that it is used structurally by groups with
differing attitudes and different goals to support the
organization. Chambers (2004, p. 25) observed that
technology is dynamic, changing every 2-3 years, and
aids in the transform ation of organizations that “must
change in synchrony with … technology.” Finally,
Halal’s (2013, p. 1636) ongoing TechCast longitudinal
project, which was designed to predict emerging
technology, underscored that the Internet continues to
transform businesses by redefining goals and changing
SAM A d vanced M a n a g e m e n t Journal – Volum e 83 Edition 110
how organizations support an ever-expanding complex
environment.
GVT technology use. Global groups use AIT
for a variety of reasons, including application
of productivity tools, collaboration, processing
and storage o f knowledge, and decision support
(Mejias, 1995; Nicolas-Rocca & Coulson, 2014;
Nikas & Poulymenakou, 2008). Collaborative and
decision support systems allow GVTs to engage,
expand their roles and responsibilities, and thereby
improve outcomes. Specific examples include
regulatory compliance, case analysis and outcomes,
yield optimization, and group workflow progress
(Davenport 8c Harris, 2005, p. 85).
Cultural Aspects o f Global Teams
Cultural dimensions include characteristics such as
customs, values, beliefs, heritage, language, myths, and
social norm s—many of these characteristics may differ
in dispersed teams. One of the most influential cultural
aspects of GVTs is individualism versus collectivism
(Mejias, 1995; Paul et al., 2005; Watson, 1994). As an
example, Asian countries such as Singapore are highly
collectivistic, whereas Western countries such as the
United States are highly individualistic (Hofstede,
1980). In individualistic cultures, openness, directness,
and even conflict in working relationships are
encouraged; not so in many Asian cultures. Hofstede et
al. (2002, p. 786) pointed out that although culturally
distributed groups may be in agreement with regard
to their end goals, their different cultures may have
instilled very different expectations as to how those
common goals are achieved. Further, Davidson and
Jordan contended that Asian countries are likely to
resist the adoption of GSS if it threatens to underm ine
leadership (high power distance; 1998, p. 44). Taking
these factors into consideration, one can see that
by forcing interdependent groups together without
adequate training and cultural knowledge, significant
barriers to successful interaction and inter-group
struggles may ensue.
Interaction, Collaboration, and Conflict in Global
Teams
Interaction and collaboration were significant
themes in this literature review. All eight o f the
reviewed sources (Appendix B) identified both of these
themes as im portant to the perform ance of global
groups. Tung and Turban (1998, p. 177) explored
the relevance of synchronous and asynchronous
comm unication and their effects on GVTs. GSS
capabilities encompass storing and retrieving
information, as well as comm unicating with and
informing other team members through electronic
media such as e-mail, voice mail, and blogs. With
synchronous GSS, distributed members interact
with each other in real time; this is not the case
with asynchronous interchanges, and problems may
occur in asynchronous interchanges with message
sequencing and participation configuration control (p.
177).
The literature consistently reveals that there is always
the possibility of task-related conflict, especially
when team members come from culturally diverse
backgrounds. However, Paul et al. (2005, p. 189)
found that, in fact, it is unlikely that members of
GVTs will develop major personalized disagreement
or individual disaffection during interactions. At first,
this may not seem intuitive, but the evidence shows
that “group type (homogeneity/heterogeneity) has a
m oderating effect on the relationship of collaborative
conflict management style with perceived decision
quality and group agreement” (Paul et al., 2005, p.
209). From a technology-use perspective, collaborative
capabilities bring structure in order “to reveal the
technology-organization relationship and to better
understand how the social structures em bedded within
the collaboration technology affect and are getting
affected by work context characteristics” (Nikas &
Poulymenakou, 2008, p. 2). In short, technology is
not deterministic. Rather, it is structured and used in
context, and at times, this may, in fact, reduce group
interaction conflict.
Finally, Nicolas-Rocca and Coulson (2014) discussed
effective collaboration as a major contributing factor
to the success in all GVT environments, stating,
“Therefore, ensuring facilitation and support of
these collaborations should be the starting point
when creating GVTs and deploying information
and com m unication technologies” (p. 80). However,
significant issues still remain with the im plementation
of AIT across cultures, especially when professionals
are unprepared to collaborate effectively with their
culturally diverse team members.
Global Team Performance, Issues, and Outcomes
Fundamentally, hum ans look to technology as
a means to improve their work environm ent and
outcomes. Mejias (1995) stated: “Group software as a
specialized computer-based interface for collaborative
SAM A d van ced M a n a g e m e n t Journal – Volume 83 Edition 1 11
T a b le 1 . I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f P e r f o r m a n c e , Is s u e s , a n d O u t c o m e s
Perform ance M easures Issues Outcomes
E fficiency rates W aste in tim e, co st o verruns,
m eetin g sp ecificatio n s
P ro je ct co m p letio n tim e,
sav in g m oney, te ch n ical
p erfo rm an ce
D ecisio n speed
C o llab o rativ e w o rk sup p o rt S atisfaction and co n fid en ce in
decisions
T ec h n o lo g y use Ineffective tech n o lo g y ,
facilitation
S ystem s satisfactio n
N u m b e r o f u n iq u e an d altern ativ e
ideas
In dividual d o m in atio n , lim ited
in fo rm atio n sh arin g , d iverse
v iew s o f success
P ro d u ctiv ity cap acity
N u m b e r o f v a lu e a d d e d
a c tiv itie s
C u ltu r a l u n d e r s ta n d in g a n d
a c c o m m o d a t io n –
in d iv i d u a li s m /c o lle c ti v is m
C h o i c e s s h if t – f ro m
in d iv id u a l p r e f e r e n c e to
g r o u p c h o ic e
T im e to r e s o lv e c o n f lic ts C u ltu ra l u n d e r s ta n d in g a n d
a c c o m m o d a t io n –
in d iv i d u a li s m /c o lle c ti v is m
C o l la b o r a t iv e c o n f lic t
m a n a g e m e n t
N u m b e r o f e n g a g e d g r o u p
m e m b e r s
D iv e r s ity , la c k o f p a r tic ip a tio n S o c ia l p r e s e n c e , a c c e s s to
s u b je c t m a tte r e x p e r ts
work groups has been shown to improve the quality
of decision-making, improve group performance,
generate significant productivity gains for many major
corporations” (p. 30). However, there is also evidence
that shows failure of adoption, unnecessary conflict,
and unanticipated outcomes are the result of poor GSS
implementation. A literature sum m ary of performance,
related issues, and outcomes is shown in Table 1.
Method
This researcher used a qualitative research approach
with thematic synthesis to generate a conceptual
framework for the adoption of technology by global
teams. In addition, interpretive conceptual analysis
was used to synthesize the heterogeneous nature of the
evidence extracted from eight contextual studies on
this topic. The conceptual framework (see Figure 4)
was first developed by uncovering commonalities in
literature and then by configuring findings (Appendix
B), exploring five thematic areas: (a) task and work
environment, (b) technology features and spirit,
(c) social and technology structures, (d) cultural
collaboration, and (e) technology adoption by global
teams (see Figure 4). Furtherm ore, two prim ary
theoretical underpinnings (cultural differentiation
and AST) influenced these five thematic areas. The
researcher then devised a future reality tree cause-and-
effect tool to holistically characterize these thematic
12
interrelationships (see Figure 4). A sum m ary claim
emerged from the synthesis and interpretation of
the process. Findings were logically used to test
propositions describing sequencing and actions that
affected the five thematic areas. These findings allowed
the researcher to identify implications and provide
recom m endations for practitioners to use in the
managem ent of GVTs.
The unit of analysis for this research is the group,
which is characterized as multidisciplinary, problem
solving experts. Research of group appropriation of
technology for use has shown that small problem
solving teams (GVTs) are generally comprised of
between five and 20 people. For example, in their
research on small groups, Gopal et al. (1993, p. 51)
used a group size of nine as a control variable in their
quantitative assessment of applying AST and the
process of group support system use. Harris (2018)
also found that Clear and MacDonell (2011) assessed
small groups of 15 to 20 members across a total of
over 216 participants in their research on methods
of assessing teams of virtual software development
members.
This researcher used a systematic review (Gough,
Oliver, & Thomas, 2012) process to explore technology
adoption and global team interaction from the
best available evidence. The approach used for this
research was first deductive, based on the conceptual
SAM Advanced M anagement Dournal – Volume 83 Edition 1
F i g u r e 3. S y s t e m a t ic R e v ie w A p p r o a c h
Develop Clear
Research
Question
Conduct Describe Study
Extensive Characteristics:
Literature Literature
Searches Review
Assess &
Appraise
Relevance and
Quality of
Selected Studies
Analyze &
Synthesize in
Accordance
with a
Conceptual
Framewor
k
Interpret and
Communicate
the Findings
Figure 3. Systematic Review Approach Adapted From: Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012).
framework, with secondary inductive discoveries (see
Appendix B). The six stages of the systematic review
process are shown in Figure 3. Search strategy and
results are included in Appendix A.
C onceptual F ram ew ork fo r M u ltin a tio n
a l Team s’ Technology A doption
A cohesive framework emerged from this literature
synthesis, which includes cultural diffusion, AST,
and the need for global teams to adopt collaborative
technology. Given the m ultinational environment
of virtual teams and technology, this conceptual
framework encompasses both the structural
com ponents and the interactions of groups who
collaborate in their work.
Five themes were identified and shown in Figure
4 (blue circles). These themes illustrate collective
activities or functions required to support the entire
concept of adopting technology by global teams. The
state of operation of these themes is described in
the findings. Four propositions were derived from
the synthesized literature, providing interrelated key
injection elements of the model portrayed in this
framework as described below and shown in figure 4.
The future-reality-tree technique was used to
illustrate cause-and-effect relationships of themes,
showing the inevitable consequences that will ensue
given various combinations or interactions between
propositions (Scheinkopf, 1999, pp. 110-131). In other
words, propositions form or drive interactions that
affect prim ary areas (themes); this comprises the total
concept of adopting technology by global teams. In
other words, there is a sequence or state of being for
each them e that is dependent upon the presence of
one or more of the other themes and propositions
(injections). Using this technique with the research
synthesized in this study (i.e., the eight sources,
Appendix B), the researcher was able to logically test
the propositions. For example, based on studies to
date, the them e of technology features and spirit will
not be realized until some degree of proposition 4
(P4: clears goals and expectations) is met. Likewise,
social and technology structures, along with cultural
collaboration, will not sufficiently ensue unless a
level of goal setting and expectations have first been
established.
A state of sufficiency was assessed for each theme,
given the impact of the propositions. This logical
AND function (green ovals) was considered for each
theme, which determ ined that propositions P I, P2,
and P3 are required in order to achieve the final state
of technology adoption by global groups. The four
propositions found to be prim ary action elements
influencing the conceptual model are as follows:
Proposition #1: Technology is appropriated
based on task form and fit: AIT use by global
SAM A d vanced M a n a g e m e n t [Journal – Volum e 83 Edition 1 13
teams is complex with features adapted based
on goals and expectations.
Proposition #2: The successful adoption and
use of technology is influenced by social and
technology structures, which are derived
from team m em ber com m itm ent and social
interaction to accomplish objectives.
Proposition #3: Cultural differences of
individualism, collectivism, and expectations
are reconciled through collaboration.
Proposition #4: The task and work
environm ent are based on establishing clear
goals with expectations (motivation).
T h e C o m p e l l i n g N e e d f o r a C o h e s iv e
M o d e l
The proliferation and capability of technology
supporting culturally distributed groups has increased
significantly over the past 3 decades. However, the
road to internationalization is fraught on both sides
with failures; that is, a cohesive managem ent model
is needed to guide and ensure that global teams can
work effectively together using advanced technology
in spite of their differences. For one, even selecting
appropriate technology that will be acceptable to
all group members can be a challenge. The research
indicates this process is complex and dynamic. As
such, to maximize success, managers must consider
that the use of AIT, such as group support systems, is
an ongoing process that requires planning, establishing
a suitable work environment, selecting appropriate
technology, technology facilitation, managing social
and technology structures, and attention to cultural
differences.
F i n d i n g s
Based on the critical interpretation and synthesis of
the literature on global groups adopting technology,
this researcher was able to configure a coherent
framework (Figure 4). The following subsections
provide a discussion of the five thematic areas and
their interrelationships using cause-and-effect analysis.
F ig u r e 4 . C o n c e p t u a l F r a m e w o r k o f M u l t i n a t i o n a l T e a m s ’ T e c h n o lo g y A d o p t i o n
T e c h n o l o g y
A d o p t i o n b y
G l o b a l
G r o u p s
P I , P 2 a n d P 3 M u s t O c c u r f o r
S u f f ic ie n c y
P 2 – A d a p t i n g R u le s
a n d R e s o u r c e s
C u l t u r a l
C o l l a b o r a t i o n
P 4 – C l e a r G o a ls a n d E x p e c t a t i o n s
T a s k a n d W o r k
E n v i r o n m e n t
F in a l D e s i r a b l e
E f f e c t
P 3 – R e c o n c i l i a t i o n o f
i n d i v i d u a l i s m &
– C o l l e c t i v i s m
P I – T e c h / T a s k f o r m & F
i t
S e c o n d L e v e l
C a u s e s
T e c h n o l o g y \ / S o c i a l a n d
F e a t u r e s a n d T e c h n o l o g y
S p i r i t S t r u c t u r e s
– _______ ______ “
S e c o n d L e v e l
E f f e c t s
F ir s t L e v e l
C a u s e
14 SAM Advanced M anagem ent Dournal – Volume 83 Edition 1
Task and Work Environments
Work begins with a need to accomplish goals
to provide a product or service. In doing so, work
expectations are formally or informally developed
and com m unicated to group members. In addition,
one must keep in m ind that groups form with a
purpose and/or set of objectives. The combination of
these objectives/purpose and expectations motivate
a team to accomplish their work. Group composition
is determ ined based on skills, availability, and other
factors. This combination of tasks and resources
comprise the work environment, and especially with
respect to global groups, this work environment
may become complex. Issues may arise such as
time differences, com m on processes, standards,
perform ance measures, magnitude of activities, and
tool needs. Success depends on the establishment
of com m on goals across groups, but with global
groups, they are often confronted with distinct
challenges such as environmental complexities and
multicultural expectations that may profoundly impact
the group (Hofstede et al., 2002, p. 786). Therefore,
proposition #4 (P4), setting d e a r goals and identifying
expectations, creates the impetuous (cause) to link task
and work environm ent to the next level needs of the
group (Figure 4).
Technology Features and Spirit
The second thematic area, group support technology
features and spirit (intention), is considered once
P4 has been determined. Social and technology
structures develop concurrently, after which cultural
collaboration begins to progress. An im portant
prerequisite is form and fit viability (PI; Turban et
al., 2011, p. 147). If this is not attended to—that is,
technology is forced upon or mismatched with the
needs of the groups or task, detrim ental outcomes to
perform ance may result. Consequently, form and fit
should be considered prior to adopting technology.
A broad base of group support technology is
now available to organizations. Primarily, these
collaborative platforms will be feature-configured and
reconfigured to meet the needs of interacting groups.
H um an and technology flexibility is also essential in
order to support progressive stages of projects as their
requirements ebb and flow.
As shown in Table 1, technology, coupled with group
perform ance and outcomes, will be judged across
num erous areas, including efficiencies, decision speed,
usage, conflict resolution, and social engagement.
Therefore, it is imperative to project needs and select
the appropriate features before attem pting to adopt
technology for use. Technology adoption ensues
when technology to task form and fit is achieved (PI)
along with progress in social structures and cultural
collaboration.
Social and Technology Structures
Just like face-to-face interchange of information,
collaboration technologies embed social structures
in the form of group and technology relationships
(Nikas & Poulymenakou, 2008). Moving forward,
interaction begins and develops with knowledge
exchanges during collaboration activities, as effected
by P4. Initially, group interaction is centered on the
needs/perform ance of the group. This establishes a
basis of rules and resources needed for subsequent
idea generation, decisions, work progress, and GVT
products—the essence of AST social structure.
Synchronous real-time comm unication provides
the most efficient exchange among group members
looking for the optimal m ethods for working together
over geographical distances, as it allows for immediate
feedback and exchange required for determ ining
roles, responsibilities, and how the group will operate.
Rules and m ethods emerge to capture the knowledge,
plans, and processes anticipated to become standard
operating procedures. Generally speaking, information
storage through system access, e-mail, voice-mail, and
so forth, will be asynchronous. The combination and
varying degree of both synchronous and asynchronous
comm unication is a driver of social structure rules and
technology resources required for disparate teams.
Technology allows for differing preferences and
needs within groups while supporting interaction
among groups. Teams are able to work out their social
and technology structural relationships, as required,
prior to establishing faithful adoption and rhythm of
supporting technology use. As a result, adapting rules
and resources (P2) as a part of social and technology
structural activities is one of three action elements
required for technology adoption (Figure 4).
Cultural Collaboration
Cultural collaboration, the fourth thematic area,
begins once task and work environments have been
established based on clear goals and recognized
expectations (P4). Collaborative support systems
allow global teams to engage, expand their roles and
responsibilities, and improve outcomes. Furtherm ore,
SAM A d vanced M a n a g e m e n t Journal – Volume 83 Edition 1 15
global companies naturally strive to find collaborative
means to support group performance.
The facility or difficulty of collaboration among
global teams differs, by degree, based on similarities
and differences, type of culture, and so forth, among
team members, as shown in Figure 1 and derived from
Hofstede’s map (1980, p. 223). Conflict may arise while
exchanging ideas or making decisions. In fact, cultural
diversity affects many areas of team work, including
collaboration, consensus, satisfaction, confidence, and
conflict resolution, as shown in Table 1. As noted by
Paul et ah, “Group m em bers wiliness and ability to
collaborate with each other is likely to have a bearing
on the overall perform ance of the group” (2005, p.
187).
The differences in Eastern and Western cultures best
characterized, in this research context, as individualism
versus collectivism often has a significant influence
on collaboration. As such, care m ust be taken
when U.S. groups (low uncertainty avoidance/
low power distance) interact with Asian groups
(low uncertainty avoidance/high power distance),
as shown in Figure 1. Issues may arise because of
the cultural differences between these groups (i.e.,
collectivistic v. individualistic). For example, U.S.
groups may generate open conflict in meetings with
their Asians counterparts, who may be uncomfortable
with this style of communcation. Another im portant
characteristic of Asian/collectivistic cultures is that
they tend to look to leadership for decisions while
avoiding taking chances themselves that might affect
the collective organization, even though they are
comfortable working with uncertainties.
Thus, eliciting interactions that would allow groups
from different cultural backgrounds and traditions to
comfortably work within their culture dimensions will
reduce conflict and improve outcomes. This framework
would entail adjusting for and de-conflicting the
characteristics found in individualism and collectivism
(P3). In this way, progress may be facilitated or
ensured towards their com m on objectives through
adoption of technology.
Technology Adoption by Global Teams
Finally, the fifth thematic area, faithful technology
adoption, is made possible when the following
objectives have been met: identification of technology
features and spirit, development of social and
technology structures, and establishing cultural
collaboration (PI, P2, P3). Group interaction,
rules and resources, and technology capabilities
are all integrated functions that contribute to the
appropriation and adaptation of technology for global
groups. Nikas and Poulymenakou (2008) inform ed us:
“By adopting a structuration approach, it is assumed
the adoption and use of novel technology are not
deterministic; technologies are structured by users
in their context of use” (p. 2). Using this approach,
teams use technology as a part of their collaborative
processes, which are subsequently refreshed by
outcomes, changes in environment, and new structures
and resources.
Limitations
The conceptual model presented in Figure 4 has
not been operationalized, as this is beyond the scope
of this paper. Additional research or attempts to
operationalize this conceptual model may provide
greater insight into the conditions under which each of
the propositions impact the thematic states.
Implications for Management
Practitioners
This paper provides the opportunity to put
theory into practice, by exploring implications and
providing recom m endations for managers who wish
to internationalize their teams. The use of technology
has been found to influence group structure and
interaction. As a result, managers are encouraged
to adopt technology across global organizations for
collaboration in achieving com m on purposes. The
following recom m endations are based on employing
the conceptual model of m ultinational teams’
technology adoption:
• Setting goals and understanding differing
expectations. It is essential for goals to be clear
and concise at the onset. It is im portant to keep
in m ind that expectations will m ost likely differ
according to cultural group practices. Therefore,
an im portant step prior to engaging teams is to
develop strategies and action plans to address
these differing characteristics and expectations,
based on Hofstede’s cultural differentiation
theory.
• Implementation o f technology in groups.
Individual and disparate group preferences
are im portant factors to be considered when
establishing groups’ needs. Successful groups rely
on facilitators to introduce, configure, and attain
16 SAM Advanced Management Journal – Volume 83 Edition 1
positive outcomes from the use of technology,
which then enables trust and perception of the
value technology among all team members. If
not deemed viable, groups or individuals will
refuse to use or ignore support technology
altogether. Therefore, identifying and employing
a technology champion is important to success.
• Supporting social and technical structures.
Identifying and applying rules and resources that
are deemed to be effective in achieving successful
group collaboration is critical. Managing both
synchronous and asynchronous communication
and addressing associated issues is a needed
focus.
• Understanding and enabling positive cultural
collaboration. It is important to make an
effort to learn about and consider the cultural
aspects of the teams in the development of a
collaborative style, with an aim of achieving team
cohesiveness. This may entail first identifying
country cultural characteristics, such as power
distance and uncertainty avoidance, and then
interjecting structures for individualism and
collectivism.
C o n c lu s io n s
The demands of a global marketplace continue
to command ever-increasing efficient operations,
lower costs, and optimization of resources. Moreover,
R e fe re n c e s
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014, 3rd Quarter).
The second machine age. Milken Institute Review: A
Journal o f Economic Policy, 16(3), 67-80. Retrieved
from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.exproxy.umuc.edu/eds
Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1998). Technology as a
contingency factor. In Strategic organizational
diagnosis and design: Developing theory fo r
application (2nd ed., pp. 224-234). Boston, MA:
Kluwer Academic.
By the Numbers: How close Atlas V came to failure in this
week’s Cygnus launch. (2016, March 27). Retrieved
from http://spaceflight 101 ,com/cygnus-oa6/by-the-
numbers-how-close-atlas-v-came-to-failure-in-this-
weeks-cygnus-launch/
Chambers, J. W. (2004, Winter). The challenge of
leadership in technology and education. The Journal
o f the American College o f Dentists, 71(4), 22-25.
Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.exproxy.
umuc.edu/eds
many of the teams within this global marketplace
are made up of members who reside across national
boundaries and datelines (Coleman & Levine, 2008,
p. 32). AIT provides capabilities for these teams to
cohesively operate together to achieve their objectives.
Thus, the adoption and use of AIT is essential to
advance business trade. Group support technology
enables greater levels of cultural interaction through
collaboration, resulting in enhanced participative
processes and better outcomes.
Both cultural differentiation and adaptive
structuration theories together provide a sound
foundation for understanding the interrelationships of
teams and technology. However, adoption and use of
technology to support interdependent groups is not as
simple as mandating communal tools.
In this paper, this author presented a conceptual
model of technology adoption that provides a
coherent framework for managers to use in developing
approaches to employ global teams. This model
includes faithfully integrating technology features,
developing social and technical structures, and
establishing effective cultural collaboration designed
for the task and work environment. To be successful
in adopting technology for global teams, these
concepts should be carefully considered, planned, and
implemented.
Coleman, D., & Levine, S. (2008). Collaboration
2.0: Technology and best practices fo r successful
collaboration in a Web 2.0 world [e-book]. Retrieved
from http://www.fg.uni-mb.si/predmeti/gi/Viri/
Collaboration%202.0-DR
Clear, T., (2010, September). Exploring the notion of
“cultural fit” in global virtual collaborations. ACM
Inroads, 1(3), 58-65. Retrieved from https://di-acm.org.
ezproxy.umuc.edu
Clear, T., & MacDonell, S. G. (2011). Understanding
technology use in global virtual teams: Research
methodologies and methods. Studying o f Computing
and Mathematical Sciences, 53, 994-1011. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2011.01.011
Davenport, T. H., & Harris, J. G. (2005, Summer).
Automated decision making comes o f age. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 46(4), 83-89. Retrieved from
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com. exproxy.umuc.edu/eds
SAM Advanced Managem ent Journal – Volume 83 Edition 1 17
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.exproxy.umuc.edu/eds
http://spaceflight
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.exproxy
http://www.fg.uni-mb.si/predmeti/gi/Viri/
https://di-acm.org
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com
*Davidson, R., & Jordan, E. (1998). Group support
systems: Barriers to adoption in a cross-cultural
setting. Journal o f Global Information Technology
Management, 1(2), 37-50. Retrieved from http://
eds.a.ebscohost.com. ezproxy.umuc.edu/eds/
Defense Acquisition System, (n.d.). DoD 5000 process
lifecycle framework. U.S. Department o f Defense.
Retrieved from http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/
acquisitions/acquisition-process-overview
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994, May 1). Capturing
the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive
structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2),
121147. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.
umuc.edu/stable/263501
1
DeSanctis, G., Poole, M. S., Zigurs, L., DeShamais, G.,
D’Onfrio, M., Gallupe, B .,… Shannon, D. (2008,
October). The Minnesota GDSS research project:
Group support systems, group processes, and outcomes.
Journal o f the Association fo r Information Systems,
9(10), 551-608. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.
com.ezproxy.umuc.edu
Dilanian, K. (2016, June 9). Why does the US use Russian
rockets to launch its satellites? MACH. Retrieved from
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/why-does-u-s-
use-russian-rockets-launch-its-satellites-n588526
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution o f society: Outline of
the theory o f structuration. Berkeley CA: University of
California Press.
Geels, F. W„ & Kemp, R. (2007, November). Dynamics
in sociotechnical systems: Typology o f change
processes and contrasting case studies. Technology
in Society, 29, 441-435. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.
techsoe.2007.08.009
Gopal, A., Bostrom, R. P., & Chin, W. W. (1993, Winter).
Applying adaptive structuration theory to investigate
the process o f group support systems use. Journal
o f Management Information Systems, 9(3), 45-69.
Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.exproxy.
umuc.edu
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An
introduction to systematic reviews. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Halal, W. E. (2013, October). Forecasting the technology
revolution: Results and learnings from the TechCast
Project. Technology Forecasting & Social Change,
80, 1635-1643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/].
techfore.2013.02.008
Harris, W. J. (2016). Theory digest: Adaptive structuration
theory and organizations. Unpublished manuscript,
Doctoral Management program, DMGT 845 class,
University o f Maryland University College, Adelphi,
MD.
Harris, W.J. (2018, April, in-press). Engineering
management: Managing technology appropriation
by global virtual tiger teams (Doctoral Dissertation),
University o f Maryland University College, Adelphi,
MD.
Hickson, D. J., Pugh, D. S., & Pheysey, D. C. (1969,
September). Operations technology and organization
structure: An empirical reappraisal. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 14, 378-397. Retrieved from http://
eds.b.ebscohost.com.exproxy.umuc.edu/eds
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International
differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA:
SAGE.
Hofstede, G., Van Deusen, C. A., Mueller, C. B., & Charles,
T. A. (2002, December 1). What goals do business
leaders pursue? A study in fifteen countries. Journal
o f International Business Studies, 33(4), 785-803.
Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.exproxy.
umuc.edu/eds
Huber, G. P. (1990). A theory o f the effects o f advanced
information technologies on organizational design,
intelligence, and decision making. Academy o f
Management Review, 15(1), 47-71. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5465/AMR. 1990.4308227
Lowry, P. B., Schuetzler, R. M., Giboney, J. S., & Gregory,
T. A. (2015,11 July). Is trust always better than
distrust? The potential value of distrust in newer virtual
teams engaged in short-term decision making. Group
Decision and Negotiation, 24, 723-752. http://dx.doi.
org /10.1007/s 10726-014-9410-x
*Mejias, R. J. (1995). A cross-cultural comparison o f group
support systems (GSS) outcomes: A United Sates
and Mexico field experiment (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10150/187308
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. (2009).
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews
and meta-analysis: The PRISMA statement. PLoS
Medicine, 6(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/joumal.
pmed 1000097
*Nicolas-Rocca, T. S., & Coulson, T. (2014). Global
virtual teams: Towards a research framework to
evaluate effectiveness in using group support systems.
Communications o f the I1MA, 77-86. Retrieved from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/eds
*Nikas, A., & Poulymenakou, A. (2008, April-June).
Technology adaptation: Capturing the appropriation
dynamics o f web-based collaboration support in a
project team. International Journal o f e-Collaboration,
4(2), 1-28. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.
exproxy.umuc.edu
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography o f thought: How
Asians and Westerners think differently…and why. New
York, NY: The Free Press.
18 SAM A d vanced M a n a g e m e n t Journal – Volume 83 Edition 1
http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy
http://eds.a.ebscohost
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/why-does-u-s-use-russian-rockets-launch-its-satellites-n588526
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/why-does-u-s-use-russian-rockets-launch-its-satellites-n588526
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.exproxy
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.exproxy
http://dx.doi
http://dx.doi
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/187308
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/joumal
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/eds
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com
*Paul, S., Samarah, I. M., Seetharaman, P., & Mykytyn,
R P. (2005, Winter). An empirical investigation of
collaborative conflict management style in group
support system-based global virtual teams. Journal
o f Management Information Systems, 21(3), 185-222.
Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.
umuc.edu/eds/
Pavlak, A. (2004, December). Project troubleshooting:
Tiger teams for reactive risk management. Project
Management Journal, 35(4), 5-14. Retrieved from
http://eds.b-ebscohost.com. exproxy.umuc.edu/eds/
Pawson, R., Boaz, A., Grayson, L., Long, A., & Barnes, C.
(2003). Types and quality of social care knowledge,
Stage two: Towards the quality assessment of social
cared knowledge. Retrieved from https://www.kcl.
ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy /research/
cep/pubs/papers/assets/wp 18
Pfeffer, J., & Leblebici, H. (1977, April 1). Information
technology and organizational structure. Pacific
Sociological Review, 20, 241-261. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.exproxy.umuc.edu/stable/1388934
Robey, D. (1977, November). Computers and management
structure: Some empirical findings re-examined.
Human Relations, 30, 963-976. Retrieved from http://
eds.a.ebscohost.com. exproxy, umuc.edu/eds
Scheinkopf, L. J. (1999). Thinking for a change, putting the
TOC thinking process to use. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press LLC.
Thomas, R. J., Beilin, J., Jules, C., & Lynton, N. (2014,
Winter). How global teams are really led. Leader to
Leader, 71, 38-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ltl.20112
*Tung, L., & Turban, E. (1998). A proposed research
framework for distributed group support systems.
Decision Support Systems, 23, 175-188. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.lst.psu.edu/
*Turban, E., Liang, T., & Wu, S. P. (2011, March). A
framework for adopting collaboration 2.0 tools for
virtual group decision making. Group Decision &
Negotiation, 20(2), 137-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
si 0726-010-9215-5
* Watson, R. T. (1994, October). Culture: A fourth
dimension of group systems. Communications o f
the ACM, 37(10), 45-55. Retrieved from http://
eds.z.escohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/eds/
A p p e n d ix A. S e a rc h S t r a te g y a n d R e s u lts
This researcher’s inclusion criteria focused on
studies fitting the context of the research question in
the adoption of advanced inform ation technology
(AIT) across global, m ulticultural teams in nonroutine
work environments. Either adoption or rejection was
a suitable com ponent for assessment. Finally, both
desirable and undesirable outcomes were included.
Exclusion criteria included studies for routine/
repetitive tasks and limited group subfunctions such as
com m unications or meetings only. Groups that existed
w ithout cultural diversity were also excluded. The
following search term s were used:
1. Statement A (UA): “Team*” AND “technology
adopt*” AND “global”: 20 articles were found.
2. Statement B (UB): “Group Support System*”
AND “global*” AND “adopt*”: four articles were
found.
3. Statement C (UC): “Group Support System*”
AND “global*”: 42 articles were found.
4. Statement B (UD): “Team*” AND “Group
Support System*” AND “Global”: 14 articles were
found.
5. Searches using the Snowball (SB) technique
derived related studies from references resulting
in five articles.
Figure A. Selecting Articles and PRISMA Diagram
Showing Total Search Results (Moher, Liberati,
Tetzlaff, 8c Altman, 2009). Eight final articles were
selected for synthesis, as shown in the PRISMA Figure
A.The PRISMA diagram shows that only eight out of
80 identified sources passed screening and eligibility
criteria. After 66 articles were found to not meet the
criteria for the study, the rem aining 14 articles were
fully assessed for eligibility, in accordance with the
conceptual framework defined and discussed below.
The resulting eight articles were carefully selected after
being subjected to quality and relevance appraisal
against a 3-point score (excellent, good, acceptable);
the TAPUPAS descriptive principle quality standards
were used for assessment. These standards included
transparency, accuracy, purposivity, utility, propriety,
accessibility, and specificity (Pawson, Boaz, Grayson,
Long, 8c Barnes, 2003, pp. 9-11). All eight studies were
assessed as good to exceptional. For example, three
articles (Nicolas-Rocca 8c Coulson, 2014; Tung 8c
Turban, 1998; Turban, Liang, 8c Wu, 2011) undergoing
quality assessment received an acceptable score in the
accuracy category; however, based on the transparency
and accuracy standards, these studies required
additional investigation from alternate sources to
SAM A d van ced M a n a g e m e n t Journal – Volume 83 Edition 1 19
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy
http://eds.b-ebscohost.com
https://www.kcl
http://www.jstor.org.exproxy.umuc.edu/stable/1388934
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ltl.20112
http://citeseerx.lst.psu.edu/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
determ ine explicability. Conversely, three other studies
(Mejias, 1995; Nikas & Poulymenakou, 2008; Paul et
al., 2005) received excellent scores in transparency due
to the in-depth explanations of their approaches, and
therefore, these studies did not need to be investigated
further.
Evidence from each of the eight studies (Appendix
B, Table B) showed both code theme breadth (rows)
and study depth (columns). Over 976 extractions were
derived from the eight articles based on 10 deductive
and 14 inductive codes. Codes were then configured
into logical groupings to define the five thematic areas
(task and work environment, technology features
and spirit, social and technology structures, cultural
collaboration, and technology adoption, as shown in
Figure 4) by global teams, which formed the premise
for this researcher’s cause-and-effect concept. The
contribution depth of each article for each thematic
area can be evidenced in these three aforementioned
sources (Mejias, 1995; Nikas & Poulymenakou,
2008; Paul et al., 2005), which provided rich material
across all but one thematic area. The remaining five
studies provided evidence supporting the conceptual
framework. Com m on themes emerged across these
studies. For instance, cultural aspects and group
interaction and collaboration, with their associated
subthemes, emerged as predom inant themes for final
synthesis and interpretation.
Figure A. Selecting A rticles and PRISMA D iagram Show ing Total Search Results
A p p en d ix B. Extracted T h e m a tic Analysis
To accomplish conceptual framework analysis, each
selected article was loaded into an ATFAS.ti (coding)
software project scheme. This allowed the assessment
and analysis of the selected studies to be categorized
(as shown in Table B) according to initial deductive
themes derived from the topic conceptual framework
(light blue rows), inductive discovery of themes
(light green row), and supporting information (light
and Coding Results
orange rows). A m ulti-iteration approach for each
article was based on code word searching of text and
graphics, which provided discovery, discussion, and/
or reinforcing evidence. Speculative inform ation, such
as hypotheses, was not included as evidence, although
associated findings were. The five themes in Figure 4
were derived based on this analysis and synthesis.
20 SAM Advanced Management Journal – Volume 83 Edition 1
T
o
ta
ls
f
o
r
T
h
em
at
ic
C
o
d
es
C
O
CO
v –
CM
L
00
CO
CO
CM
h
0 0
T—
1
CO
T—
Pi,
00
CO
i t
o
o
T –
CM
0 0
r-
T“
T
u
r
b
an
,
L
ia
n
g
,
&
W
u
(2
01
1)
,
Q
u
al
it
at
iv
e,
U
B
i n
Y“ 10 r – CD o CMT—
N
ik
as
&
P
o
u
ly
m
en
ak
o
u
(2
00
8)
,
Q
u
al
it
at
iv
e,
S
B
CM
CO CO
CO
T— T “ CM
Z
i O ) 0 0 i n
N
ic
o
la
s-
R
o
cc
a
&
C
o
u
ls
o
n
(2
01
4)
,
Q
u
al
it
at
iv
e,
U
C
O
T— CO CM T – in T – T—
P
au
l,
S
am
ar
ah
,
S
ee
th
ar
am
an
,
&
M
yk
yt
yn
(
20
05
),
Q
u
an
ti
ta
ti
ve
,
U
C
CO
CM CM CO T“ 23
in
T –
T
u
n
g
&
T
ur
b
a
n
(1
99
8)
,
Q
u
al
it
at
iv
e,
U
D
0 0
CM – 0 0 CM
CD
D
av
id
so
n
&
Jo
rd
an
(1
99
8)
,
Q
u
al
it
at
iv
e,
U
B
0 0
CM – r ” . 0 0 – CM
CO
T—
M
ej
ia
s
(1
99
5)
,
Q
u
an
ti
ta
ti
ve
&
Q
u
al
it
at
iv
e,
U
D
i n
CO CO – –
o 0 0
CO o> T—
W
at
so
n
(
19
94
),
Q
u
al
it
at
iv
e,
S
B
1 ^ m CD – CO
T
h
em
at
ic
A
n
al
ys
is
a
n
d
C
o
d
in
g
C
h
ar
t
C
o
n
te
xt
u
al
D
ed
u
ct
iv
e
T
h
em
es
/C
o
d
es
|
A
d
va
n
ce
d
I
n
fo
rm
at
io
n
T
ec
h
(A
I
T
)
jj
A
IT
F
ea
tu
re
s
jj
| T
ec
h
n
o
lo
g
y
A
d
o
p
ti
o
n
\
I G
lo
b
al
G
ro
u
p
|
|
G
ro
u
p
C
o
m
p
o
si
ti
o
n
j
G
ro
u
p
E
n
vi
ro
n
m
en
t
jj
G
ro
u
p
U
se
j|
P
er
fo
rm
an
ce
&
O
u
tc
o
m
es
Is
su
es
&
P
ra
ct
ic
e
j!
| P
ra
ct
ic
al
B
en
ef
it
s
|
in
Tt
T“
b
00
CM
T-
CD
CD
CM
– o
00
CO m
o
23 35 25
CO T— T –
in
CM o
56 –
h- CD
C
u
lt
u
ra
l A
sp
ec
ts
C
u
lt
u
ra
l
In
d
iv
id
u
al
is
m
/C
o
lle
ct
iv
is
m
|
| G
ro
u
p
I
n
te
ra
ct
io
n
&
C
o
lla
b
o
ra
ti
o
n
1
G
ro
u
p
C
o
n
fl
ic
t
CO
jv.
CO
CM
k
COCM
ft,
00
T “
k
CD
h,
00
‘it h,
CD
if
i n
r,
9
7
6
1
CO CM CO CM CM CO
00
CD CO CD CD – CO T— –
– m CD T – T – T“ T“ CM
“Ct h CD CO CM – CO CM
r — CO CO CM – T—
O i n r-
i no T— CD CM CM T— T— o
CMCDT—
CM CD
or-~
P ce |T k d ti S u u h ry A T j n w d e jS ch n u A n ro o s o m j o p xi j | A F ili to j en al e/ ec tr iz O s | U ce ai ty vo an j t st j ot s r l tu ie |
-Od> SAM Advanced Management Journal – Volume 83 Edition 1 21
N e: u er
co
u ts ep se t ir tl re va t tr te q o s Copyright of SAM Advanced Management Journal (07497075) is the property of Society for Managing and Using Information Systems: Keri Pearlson, Carol Saunders, © Copyright 2016 Chapter 4 2 American Express Opening Case © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. It represents a flexible workplace: staggered hours, off-site work areas (such as home), shared office space, touch-down space (laptop-focused, temporary), and telecommuting. 4 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. IT Has Changed Work 5 How IT Changes Traditional Work Zuboff provides an example of disconnection from the task at a paper mill where the masters could no longer smell and squeeze the pulp to make sure of the chlorine content (to know the pulp was ready). How IT Changes Traditional Work Example of collaboration: Dell uses IdeaStorm and 23,000 ideas have been submitted, 747,000 votes recorded, and over 100,000 comments have been made. Dell’s management have implemented over 500 of the ideas. Collaboration Technologies Matrix © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. How IT Changes Traditional Work Example of personnel control: Apple’s hiring of Steve Jobs while on the verge of bankruptcy. Apple didn’t know exactly what Steve’s task would be. Evaluating him if he didn’t do the stellar things he did would be difficult because the goal was unclear. Changes to Supervision/Evaluations/ Compensation/Hiring © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Where Work is Done: Mobile and Virtual Work Key Activities in the Life Cycle of Teams © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Telecommuting: Global Status 14 Drivers of Remote Work and Virtual Teams © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 14 15 Higher personal productivity Housebound individuals can join the workforce Some advantages and disadvantages of remote work 15 Virtual Teams 16 Challenges Virtual Teams Traditional Teams 17 17 Managerial Issues In Telecommuting and Mobile Work 18 Managing the Challenges Managing the Challenges Gaining Acceptance For It-induced Change 21 Kotter’s Model © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Managing and Using Information Systems: © Copyright 2016
9 hours ago
Shravani Kasturi
Discussion
COLLAPSE
Top of Form Precise development in teleworking and other portable work preparations, the workplaces tangibly must transform in the approaching ages and that is for sure. I don’t think that the physical offices would be available because of the advantages the arrangements bring on the table and by far can be supported by many people working in these offices for very own reasons. The advantages are very encouraging especially to the person functioning in these offices (Shaheen & Cohen, 2018). The first benefit is that it improves the output. It is estimated that countries lose a lot of money in disruptions such as health problems, excessive traveling and more. The workers find it very hard to hit extreme efficiency because of the outmoded office work setting. Research conducted proves that workers think that a secluded work routine would increase productivity as capital and resources are directed into production. The subsequent gain is that it is better for health and the environment at large. With increased commuting, a lot of carbon production is increased. Thus telecommuting is an excellent way for the firm to go green and improve the general comfort of the workers. An alternative profit is that it reduces costs. In many ways, keeping the cost level at minimum is very hectic. Telecommuting helps reduce functioning costs and the worker’s costs overall. It also provides a decent forthcoming for work. Telecommuting is a way of life as the workers are comfortable in their ways hence more productive at a larger picture. It is also a way of keeping the elderly at the working stations. The older people want a simple and flexible working condition as the strength and efficiency have become a bigger problem. This is meaning that telecommuting is becoming phenomenal at a larger picture because it provides answers to problems made by workers (Golden & Gajendran, 2019). Bottom of Form
5 hours ago
Satish Kumar Reddy Nagireddi
Discussion 3
COLLAPSE
Top of Form
Given the growth in telecommuting and other mobile work arrangements, how might offices physically change in the coming years? Will offices as we think of them today exist in the next ten years? Why or why not?
Over the coming years, the existence of physical offices will greatly shift, although technology will not have reached at a level where they are totally eliminated. However, the functions of a physical office and many features as well as workers in the offices will change. There will be no need for secretaries as that will be replaced with new technologies that will help in scheduling appointments and accepting appointments based on the schedule keyed into the system. Meetings and appointments will be done online through video and teleconferencing means, which are likely to grow immensely over the next ten years (Andrews, 2018). Although physical offices will not have been done away with in the next ten years, their sizes will be reduced drastically because there will be no need for infrastructure and companies can connect online with employees working remotely towards a common goal. This will mean that companies will still need to have physical locations where they can be identified with because a physical presence of brands is also critical (Bluestone & Warner, 2018). The future office will be software applications that will be stacked with cloud software that will be used to operate remotely through cloud computing. This will make the work of employees easier as they do not have to wake up early mornings and dealing with heavy traffic. However, concerns over the commitment and seriousness of the employees have already been raised under such working conditions and it remains to be seen how discipline will be enhanced. Coordination of people working remotely is hard, so is their motivation (Andrews, 2018).
References
Bluestone, P., & Warner, N. (2018). Driverless Cars, Virtual Offices and Their Effects on Local Government Property Tax Revenues. Andrews, M. (2018). Physical space in vogue as firms ponder future of offices. Australasian Law Management Journal, (Dec 2018), 1.
Bottom of Form
i n
CMCM
T“
ro
ss
as
| A
ap
ve
tr
ct
ra
ti
o
n
T
eo
(
S
)
| K
o
le
g
j
yn
ro
o
s/
sy
ch
n
u
C
m
C
m
le
ty
IT
ac
ta
r
jC
tr
iz
D
en
al
ed
rg
j
n
rt
n
A
id
ce
| G
ro
u
p
ru
T
al
fo
al
S
d
s:
Oo
o
□
T3
C
cTOO
“E
U)<75
ot
n
m
ic
n
r
re
n
d
ec
y
le
n
ex
ac
d
u
te
Advancement of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites
or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
A Strategic Approach – Sixth Edition
and Dennis Galletta
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
IT and the Design of Work
What is the “Blue Work” program?
What was the strategic thrust behind the Blue Work program?
What are “hub,” “club,” “home,” and “roam” employees?
What is the role of technology in these arrangements?
What was the impact of Blue Work?
Have other firms found roaming employment useful?
3
American Express viewed workplace flexibility as a strategic lever. Also, AmEx had a corporate focus on results rather than hours clocked.
Hub: Work in the office; Club: Share time between the office and other locations; Home: work at home at least 3 days a week; Roam: Are on the road or at customer sites
Technology drives the flexibility, it doesn’t just enable productivity
American Express saves $10 million annually. Productivity improvements, office expense savings, employee satisfaction are all up. Managers are happy too.
IBM, Aetna, AT&T use this approach for a third or more of their employees. Sun Microsystems has saved $400 million in real estate costs by allowing half of their employees to roam.
3
Work Design Framework
IT has:
Created new types of work
Bureau of Labor Statistics: IT employment in the USA is at an all-time high
New jobs such as:
Data scientists/data miners
Social media managers
Communications managers
Enabled new ways to do traditional work
Supported new ways to manage people
5
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Changes the way work is done
Broadens skills; faster but more tasks
Sometimes IT disconnects us from the tasks
Sometimes people can perform more strategic tasks
Few staff are engaged in order entry any longer
Crowdsourcing is now possible at very low cost (M.Turk)
Changes how we communicate
More asynchronous and more irregular
Social networking has provided new opportunities for customer interaction
Collaboration allows a firm to look “big” with new tools
6
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Also, the skills of salespeople have turned from order takers and stock counters to marketing consultants.
6
Changes decision-making
Real-time information; more information available
Data mining can identify new insights
Ideas can be gleaned from social networks
Middle management ranks have shrunk as Leavitt/Whisler predicted
Changes collaboration
Work is now more team oriented; more collaborative
Sharing is easier than ever, using multiple methods
Crowdsourcing can now provide quick answers from tens, hundreds, or even thousands of people
We now can disconnect PLACE and TIME (Figure 4.2)
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
7
7
8
New ways to connect
Many employees are always connected
Lines between work and play are now blurred
For many, home technologies are better than work technologies
New ways to manage people
Behavior controls – direct supervision
Outcome controls – examining outcomes not actions
Personnel controls – pick the right person for the task
The digital approach provides new opportunities at any of those three levels (Fig. 4.3)
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
9
9
10
Much work can be done anywhere, anytime
People desire the flexibility
Telecommuting = teleworking = working from home or even in a coffee shop
Mobile workers work from anywhere (often while traveling)
Remote workers = telecommuters + mobile workers
Virtual teams include remote workers as well as those in their offices, perhaps scattered geographically
Virtual teams have a life cycle (Figure 4.4)
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
11
12
A poll of 11,300 employees in 22 countries: 1 in 6 telecommute
When employees in 13 countries were asked if they need to be in the office to be productive:
Overall 39% said “yes”
But specific countries differed in the “yes” votes:
Only 7% in India, but
56% in Japan
57% in Germany
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
13
Driver Effect
Shift to knowledge-based work
Changing demographics and lifestyle preferences
New technologies with enhanced bandwidth
Web ubiquity
“Green” concerns Decouples work from any particular place
Workers desire geographic and time-shifting flexibility
Remotely-performed work is practical and cost-effective
Can stay connected 24/7
Reduced commuting costs; real estate energy consumption; travel costs
Advantages of Remote Work Potential Problems
Reduced stress: better ability to meet schedules; less distraction at work
Higher morale and lower absenteeism
Geographic flexibility
Informal Dress Increased stress: Harder to separate work from home life
Harder to evaluate performance
Employee may become disconnected
from company culture
Telecommuters are more easily replaced by offshore workers
Not suitable for all jobs or employees
Security might be more difficult
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Virtual Teams: geographically and/or organizationally dispersed coworkers:
Assembled using telecommunications and IT
Aim is to accomplish an organizational task
Often must be evaluated using outcome controls
Why are they growing in popularity?
Information explosion: some specialists are far away
Enhanced bandwidths/fast connections to outsiders
Technology is available to assist collaboration
Less difficult to get relevant stakeholders together
16
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Communications Multiple time zones can lead to greater efficiency but can lead to communication difficulties and coordination costs (passing work).
Non-verbal communication is difficult to convey Same time zone. Scheduling is less difficult.
Teams may use richer communication media.
Technology Proficiency is required in several technologies. Support for face-to-face interaction without replacing it
Skills and task-technology fit is less critical
Team Diversity Members represent different organizations and/or cultures:
– Harder to establish a group identity.
– Necessary to have better com. skills
– More difficult to build trust, norms
– Impact of deadlines not always consistent More homogeneous members
Easier group identity
Easier to communicate
Challenges facing virtual teams.
Planning, business and support tasks must be redesigned to support mobile and remote workers
Training should be offered so all workers can understand the new work environment
Employees selected for telecommuting jobs must be self-starters
18
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Communications challenges
Policies and practices must support the work arrangements
Must prepare differently for meetings
Slides and other electronic material must be shared beforehand
Soft-spoken people are difficult to hear; managers must repeat key messages
Frequent communications are helpful (hard to “overcommunicate”)
Technology challenges
Provide technology and support to remote workers
Use high quality web conferencing applications
Clarify time zones for scheduling
Information should be available for everyone (cloud storage can help)
Policies and norms about use of the technology can be important
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
19
Diversity challenges
Concept of time differs throughout the world
Anglo-American cultures view time as a continuum (deadlines are important; many prefer not to multitask)
Indian cultures have a cyclical view of time (deadlines are less potent; many prefer to multitask)
Team diversity might need nurturing:
Communications differences
Trust building
Group identity formation
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
20
Many changes might be a major concern for employees
Changes might be resisted if they are viewed as negative impacts
Several types of resistance:
Denying that the system is up and running
Sabotage by distorting or otherwise altering inputs
Believing and/or spreading the word that the new system will not change the status quo
Refusing to use the new system (if voluntary)
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
21
22
A Strategic Approach – Sixth Edition
Keri Pearlson, Carol Saunders,
and Dennis Galletta
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.