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

2. 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)

3. Systems Perspective

4. 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

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

6. 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)

7. 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

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

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

10. 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)

11. 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)

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

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

14. 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