Developing a Cohesive Approach Assignment
International trade and collaboration continue to expand in the development of products, services, and interdependent-market 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 performance 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 multi- 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. Developing a Cohesive Approach Assignment
BUY A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
Background and Context of Global V irtua l Teams
Global engineering teams in the public sector are tasked to provide various capabilities for government agencies. Contractors that serve various government
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, teamwork 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 tremendous 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 implementation for global team members (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 performance and outcome (Harris, 2018).
The Challenges of 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 determining 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). Furthermore, 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 must 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). Developing a Cohesive Approach Assignment
Research has found, there are a number 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 important component 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 performance 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 compound 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. Department 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 determine the root cause. One can easily see that a failure of one country’s product may become exploitive political news overnight, regardless
SAM Advanced M anagem ent Journal – Volume 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 within a short amount 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 management is able to solve difficult and sometimes time-sensitive problems – whilst satisfying global stakeholders. Developing a Cohesive Approach Assignment
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 information digital revolution, which continues today (Brynjolfsson 8c McAfee, 2014). What 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 communication norms. In fact, a new form of sociology – digital sociology (Lupton, 2015) – has emerged to address human interaction with both computer-based group support tools and today’s social media. Thus, as technology has advanced, so, too, have methods of communication and team production (Harris, 2018). These phenomena 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). Developing a Cohesive Approach Assignment
Research Question The exploratory research question presented below
is designed to drive this systematic study, as will permit 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 management of global virtual teams and the adoption of support technology. To that end, the following research question forms the context and drives this research:
What specific issues do global problem-solving teams face when adopting advanced information technology (AIT) for collaborative support?
Literature 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 multinational 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 primary 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 of 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 countries
6 SAM Advanced Management 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 Time-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). Developing a Cohesive Approach Assignment
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 dominating 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. During 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 unknown 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 re 1. R e la t io n s h ip B e tw e e n U n v e r ta in ty A v o id a n c e a n d P o w e r D is ta n c e
aj u c as
– w
5 s- 5> £ o
CL
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 paramount 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 common 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 component 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. Developing a Cohesive Approach Assignment
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 within 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 needs… 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 important distinction between system and structure: “The system is a social entity such as a group … structures are the norms 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. Developing a Cohesive Approach Assignment
SAM Advanced Management Journal – Volume 83 Edition 18
Figure 2. Adaptive Structuration Theory Domain and IPO Diagram
In p u t s P ro c e s s O u t p u t s
/ Structure of Advanced
\
Inform ation Technoloev • Features
V. Spirit (intended use) / Task & Environment
Structures Task type
Situation, expectations
Internal Group System Individual preferences Interaction
Norms, processes, AIT facilitation
G r o u p S o c ia l In t e r a c t io n
Tech ADorooriation GrouD Processes * Degree of Respect • Idea generation * Faithfulness • Participation ■ Consensus • Decision-Making ■ Instrum ental value • Conflict M gt • AIT Attitudes • Influence ■ Ease of use • Process M gt
_____ ■P
Emergent Sources of Structure
AIT Products & Outputs
Task Products & Outputs Changes in Environment Due to AIT Use
Outcomes • Q uality objective
perceived
• Consensus • Com m itm ent
• Confidence in Decisions
• Satisfaction w ith
Outcomes 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 number 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. Where 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
dominated 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 predominantly used for record keeping, data analysis, and reporting, were feature-limited. More complex systems evolved that included high performance 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 important group needs (Turban et al., 2011, p. 141). Developing a Cohesive Approach Assignment
Within 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 of 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 humans and machines. That is, a multiphase project comprised of both people and technology transforms as the tasks and environment change. For example, Paul et al. (2005) linked bipolar dimensions (see Figure 1) to group composition while tying performance 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). However, 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 within the same organization.
Team structure – organization complexity. Organization complexity is also a common 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 number of exceptional cases encountered, the degree of logical analysis, and how the information 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 transformation 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 Advanced Management Journal – Volume 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 of 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 of Global Teams Cultural dimensions include characteristics such as
customs, values, beliefs, heritage, language, myths, and social norms—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 undermine 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. Developing a Cohesive Approach Assignment
Interaction, Collaboration, and Conflict in Global Teams
Interaction and collaboration were significant themes in this literature review. All eight of the reviewed sources (Appendix B) identified both of these themes as important to the performance of global groups. Tung and Turban (1998, p. 177) explored the relevance of synchronous and asynchronous
communication and their effects on GVTs. GSS capabilities encompass storing and retrieving information, as well as communicating 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 moderating 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 embedded 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 communication technologies” (p. 80). However, significant issues still remain with the implementation 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, humans look to technology as
a means to improve their work environment and outcomes. Mejias (1995) stated: “Group software as a specialized computer-based interface for collaborative
SAM Advanced M anagem ent Journal – Volume 83 Edition 1 11
T a b le 1 . In te r re la t io n s h ip s o f P e rfo rm a n c e , Iss u e s , a n d O u tc o m e s
Performance Measures Issues Outcomes
Efficiency rates W aste in time, cost overruns,
meeting specifications
Project com pletion time,
saving money, technical
perform ance
Decision speed
Collaborative work support Satisfaction and confidence in decisions
Technology use Ineffective technology, facilitation
Systems satisfaction
N um ber o f unique and alternative
ideas
Individual domination, lim ited information sharing, diverse
views o f success
Productivity capacity
N u m b er o f v a lue added
ac tiv itie s
C u ltu ra l u n d ers tan d in g and
ac co m m o d atio n –
in d iv id u a lism /co llec tiv ism
C h o ices sh ift – from
ind iv idual p re fe ren ce to
g ro u p cho ice
T im e to reso lv e co n flic ts C u ltu ra l u n d erstan d in g and
acco m m o d atio n –
in d iv id u a lism /co llec tiv ism
C o llab o ra tiv e co n flic t
m an ag em en t
N u m b er o f en g ag ed group
m em bers
D iversity , lack o f p artic ip a tio n S ocia l p resen ce , access to
su b jec t m a tte r experts
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 summary 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). Furthermore, two primary 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 Developing a Cohesive Approach Assignment
interrelationships (see Figure 4). A summary 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 recommendations for practitioners to use in the management 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 Management Dournal – Volume 83 Edition 1
F ig u re 3. S y s te m a tic R e v ie w A p p ro 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 Framework
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.
Conceptual Framework for M ultination- al Teams’Technology Adoption
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 multinational environment of virtual teams and technology, this conceptual framework encompasses both the structural components 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 primary 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 theme 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 theme 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 determined that propositions PI, P2, and P3 are required in order to achieve the final state of technology adoption by global groups. The four propositions found to be primary 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 Advanced Managem ent [Journal – Volume 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 member commitment 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 environment are based on establishing clear goals with expectations (motivation). Developing a Cohesive Approach Assignment
T h e C o m p e ll in g N e e d fo 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 management 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 in d in 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 re 4 . C o n c e p tu a l F ra m e w o rk o f M u lt in a t io n a l T e a m s ’ T e c h n o lo g y A d o p tio n
T e c h n o lo g y
A d o p t io n by
G lo b a l
G ro u p s
P I , P 2 a n d P 3 M u s t O c c u r fo r
S u ff ic ie n c y
P 2 – A d a p t in g R u le s
a n d R e s o u rc e s
C u ltu r a l
C o lla b o r a t io n
P 4 – C le a r G o a ls a n d E x p e c ta t io n s
T a s k a n d W o r k
E n v ir o n m e n t
F in a l D e s ira b le
E ffe c t
P 3 – R e c o n c ilia t io n o f
in d iv id u a lis m &
-C o lle c t iv is m
P I – T e c h /T a s k fo 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 lo g y \ / S o c ia l a n d
F e a tu re s a n d T e c h n o lo g y
S p ir it S tru c tu re s
– _______ ______ “
S e c o n d L e v e l
E ffe c ts
F irs t L e v e l
C a u s e
14 SAM Advanced Management 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 communicated to group members. In addition, one must keep in mind 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 determined 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, common processes, standards, performance measures, magnitude of activities, and tool needs. Success depends on the establishment of common 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 dear goals and identifying expectations, creates the impetuous (cause) to link task and work environment 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 important 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, detrimental outcomes to performance 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. Human 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 performance and outcomes, will be judged across numerous areas, including efficiencies, decision speed, usage, conflict resolution, and social engagement.
Therefore, it is imperative to project needs and select the appropriate features before attempting 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/performance 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 communication provides the most efficient exchange among group members looking for the optimal methods for working together over geographical distances, as it allows for immediate feedback and exchange required for determining roles, responsibilities, and how the group will operate. Rules and methods 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 communication is a driver of social structure rules and technology resources required for disparate teams. Developing a Cohesive Approach Assignment
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. Furthermore,
SAM Advanced Managem ent 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 members wiliness and ability to collaborate with each other is likely to have a bearing on the overall performance 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 must 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 important 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 common 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) informed 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 recommendations 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 common purposes. The following recommendations are based on employing the conceptual model of multinational teams’ technology adoption:
• Setting goals and understanding differing expectations. It is essential for goals to be clear and concise at the onset. It is important to keep in mind that expectations will most likely differ according to cultural group practices. Therefore, an important 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 of technology in groups. Individual and disparate group preferences are important 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.
Conclusions The demands of a global marketplace continue
to command ever-increasing efficient operations, lower costs, and optimization of resources. Moreover,
R eferences 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 for 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. Developing a Cohesive Approach Assignment
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.
Developing a Cohesive Approach Assignment