Invited Presentation for 2004 ICIS SIG-CORE Workshop Catherine Durnell Cramton George Mason University December 12, 2004

A Major Theme Multiple Perspectives Perspective-Taking That they exist How they differ Why they exist and differ The consequences Consequences if you don’t Consequences if you do Who does perspective-taking, who doesn’t, and why Perspectives most difficult to access (systems perspective)

Systems Perspective

The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences (OS, 2001) What I learned Maintaining mutual knowledge central challenge of distributed work Problems: Distribution of information, understanding of remote situations, interpretation of information, time lags Consequences: Different realities, subgroup formation, conflict, inaccurate attributions, no learning What next? Prove that dispositional attribution is exacerbated Find out exactly why and how subgroups form Include international and cross-cultural considerations Examine system dynamics more carefully

Subgroup Faultlines in Internationally Distributed Teams: Ethnocentrism or Learning? Catherine Cramton, George Mason U. Pamela Hinds, Stanford U. Funded by NSF collaborative grants #IIS-0219754 and #IIS-0220098

Observed States Subgroup formation and escalating “us vs. them” conflict (Armstrong & Cole, 1995; Cramton, 1997, 2001) Team adaptation and learning (Brannen & Salk, 2000; Salk & Brannen, 2000; Salk & Shenkar, 2001)

Subgroup Faultlines in Internationally Distributed Teams (ROB, 2004) Salience Degree of Alignment (Faultline) 3 4b 4a 1a 1b Capability on Future Teams Team Effectiveness Activating Event 5 2a Cross-National Learning Subgroup Ethnocentrism 1c Mutual Positive Distinctiveness Information Sharing Motivation to Engage Across Differences Geographic Distribution Attribute Composition Institutional or Social Support Equal Status Cooperative Interdependence Inclusive Communication Sharing of Context

Study Design 2003 Western Europe India U.S. 3 teams 3 teams

Study Design 2004 Japan Western Europe U.S. India 1-2 teams 3 teams

Multi-Cultural Research Team 2 White American women 1 Indian man (4 languages) 1 White European woman (3 languages) 1 African woman (5 languages) 1 Japanese man (multiple languages)

Data Collection 181 ethnographic interviews, 12 teams, 2 companies (Summer 2003) 12 person weeks concurrent observation of 6 teams (Summer-Fall 2003) Team performance survey (Fall 2003, Fall 2004) Follow-up interviews. Initial interviews on Japanese legs of triangle (Fall 2004)

Concurrent Observation Design Western Europe 2 teams 2 teams U.S. India 2 teams

Data Analysis Feedback to companies and participants Open coding Check for interviewer and reader group membership effects Team level analysis Topic specific coding

Papers In Preparation Degree of Alignment (Faultline) Institutional or Social Support Influence Dynamics Cooperative Interdependence 2b Subgroup Salience Degree of Alignment (Faultline) 3 4b 4a 1a 1b Capability on Future Teams Team Effectiveness Activating Event 5 2a Cross-National Learning Subgroup Ethnocentrism 1c Mutual Positive Distinctiveness Information Sharing Motivation to Engage Across Differences Geographic Distribution Attribute Composition Inclusive Communication Sharing of Context