Gary Garrison
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Globally distributed teams are becoming more common among organizations that seek to maximize knowledge creation and innovation for competitive advantage. Although they are becoming widely used among global organizations, distributed teams are creating an environment replete in cultural and functional diversity. Whereas synergy among members is desired, diversity is likely to hinder team cohesion and individual performance. Our study models and empirically tests the effect of perceptions of diversity on trust, cohesion, and individual performance in actual globally distributed teams. The results indicate that individual productivity is negatively influenced by the extent of diversity within a team; however, this liability may be restrained if an environment of trust is encouraged and team cohesion develops.
- Adler, N. J. (1997). International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior 3rd ed. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.Google Scholar
- Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123--148.Google Scholar
- Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. (1997). The Effect of Conflict on Strategic DecisionMaking Effectiveness and Organizational Performance. In C.K. w. De Dreu & E. Van De Vliert (Ed.), Using Conflict in Organizations (pp. 101--115). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Austin, J. R. (1997). A cognitive framework for understanding demographic influences in groups. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5(4), 342--360.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bagozzi, R. Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational Research. Administrative Science Quarterly 36(3), 421--458.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285--309.Google Scholar
- Beeber, L. S., & Schmitt, M. H. (1986). Cohesiveness in Groups: A Concept in Search of a Definition. Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 1--11.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Benoit A. A, & Kelsey, B. L. (2003). Further Understanding Of Trust and Performance in Virtual Teams. Small Group Research, 34(5), 575--618.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived Cohesion: a conceptual and Empirical Examination. Social forces, 69(2), 479--504.Google Scholar
- Bond, M.H., & Wnag, S.H. (1983). China: Aggressive Behaviour and the Problem of Maintaining Order and Harmony, in A.P. Goldstein and M.H. Segall (eds), Global Perspectives on Aggression, New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
- Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307--324.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brewer, M. (1995). Managing Diversity: The Role of Social Identities. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Ed.), Diversity in Work Teams (pp. 47--68). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and Measurement Issues. Small Group Research, 31(1), 89--106.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chang, A., & Prashant, B. (2001). A Multidimensional Approach to the Group Cohesion-Group Performance Relationship. Small Group Research, 32(4), 379--405.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being Different Yet Feeling Similar: The Influence of Demographic Composition and Organizational Culture on Work Processes and Outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 749--780.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond Direct and Symmetrical Effects: The Influence of Demographic Dissimilarity on Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 273--287.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational Development in Computer-Supported Groups. MISQuarterly, 20(2), 143--165. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chin, W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research (pp. 295--336). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Chowdhury, S. (2005). Demographic diversity for building an effective entrepreneurial team: is it important? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6), 727--746.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239--290.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cohen, S. G., & Mankin, D. (1999). Collaboration in the Virtual Organization. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Virtual Organization: Trends in Organizational Behavior (pp. 105--120). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Costa, A. C. (2003). Work team trust and effectiveness. Personal Review, 32(5), 605--622.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 12(3), 346--371. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cummings, J.N. (2004), Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352--364. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Daily, B. F., & Steiner, R. L. (1998).The Influence of Group Decision Support Systems on Contribution and Commitment Levels in Multicultural and Culturally Homogeneous Decision-making Groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 14(1), 147--162.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Davis, J. (1982). Group Performance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, D.L. (2001). The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450--467. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dube, L., & Pare, G. (2001). Global Virtual Teams. Communications of the ACM, 44(12), 71--73. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dubrivsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-face Decision-making Groups. Human Computer Interaction, 6, 119--146. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social Pressure in Informal Groups. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
- Fiol, C.M., & O'Connor, E.J. (2005). Identification in Face-to-Face, Hybrid, and Pure Virtual Teams: Untangling the Contradictions. Organization Science, 16(1), 19--32. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fornell, C. L. D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39--50.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. eds. (2003). Virtual Teams That Work. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
- Goodbody, J. (2005). Critical success factors for global virtual teams. Strategic Communication Management, 9(2), 18--21.Google Scholar
- Gonzalez, M. G., Burke, M. J., Santuzzi, A. M., & Bradley, J. (2003). The Impact of Group Process Variables on the Effectiveness of Distance Collaboration Groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 629--648.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, D. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 269--313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
- Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., and Black, W. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Hunsaker, P., and Hunsaker, J. (2008). Virtual Teams: A Leader's Guide. Team Performance Management, 14(1/2), 86--101.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Heames, J.T., Harvey, M., & Treadway, D. (2006). Status Inconsistency: An Antecedent to Bullying in Groups. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 348--361.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Voss, K. (2006). Competencies for virtual teamwork: Development and validation of a web-based selection tool for members of distributed teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(4), 477--504.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615--632. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., & Gallios, C. (2003) Consequences of Feeling Dissimilar from Others in a Work Team. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(3), 301--324.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hogg, M.A., & Terry, D.J. (2000), Social Identity and Self-categorization Processes in Organizational Contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121--40.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Horwitz, S. K. (2005). The Compositional Impact of Team Diversity on Performance: Theoretical Considerations. Human Resource Development Review, 4(2), 219--245.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Horwitz, F. M., Bravington, D., & Silvis, U. (2006). The promise of virtual teams: identifying key factors in effectiveness and failure. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(6), 472--494.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of Team Demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987--1015.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 422--447.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Insch, G. S., & Miller, S. R. (2005). Perception of foreignness: Benefit or liability? Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(4), 423--438.Google Scholar
- Jackson, S. (1992). Team Composition in Organizations. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. Simpson (Ed.), Group Process and Productivity (pp. 138--173). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Ed.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 204--261). San Francisco: Jossey--Bass.Google Scholar
- Jackson, S. E., Stone, V. K., & Alvarez, E. B. (1992). Socialization amidst diversity: The impact of demographics on work team oldtimers and newcomers. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 45--109.Google Scholar
- Jannsen, O., Van de Vliert, E., & Veenstra, C. (1999). How Task and Person Conflict Shape the Role of Positive Interdependence in Management Groups. Journal of Management, 25, 117--141.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jarvenpaa, S., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. (1998). Is Anybody Out There? Antecedents of Trust in global Virtual Teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29--64. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791--815. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jarvenpaa, S. L., Shaw, T. R., & Staples, D. S. (2004). Toward Contextualized Theories of Trust: The Role of Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Information Systems Research, 15(3), 250--267. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jehn, K. A. (1995). A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256--282.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jehn, K. A. (1997). A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in Organizational Groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530--557.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict and Performance in Workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741--763.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kaiser, P., Tullar, W., and McKowen, D. (2000). Student Team Projects by Internet. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 75--82.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kasper-Fuehrer, E. C., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2001). Communicating Trustworthiness and Building Trust in Interorganizational Virtual Organizations. Journal of Management, 27(3), 235--254.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kayworth, T.R., Leidner, D.E. (2001). Leadership Effectiveness in Global Virtual Teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 7--41. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Leadership Effectiveness in Global Virtual Teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 7--41. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. (2002). What Do We Know About Proximity in Work Groups? A Legacy of Research on Physical Distance. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Ed.), Distributed Work (pp.76--109). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five challengess to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 67--79.Google Scholar
- Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team Mental Model: Construct or Metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2), 403--437.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Knouse, S. B., & Dansby, M. R. (1999). Percentage of Work Group Diversity and Work Group Effectiveness. Journal of Psychology, 133, 486--494.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work Groups and Teams in Organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology (vol. 12, pp. 333--375). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Kramer, R. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas: The role of categorization processes. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 191--228). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Kramer, R. M., Brewer, M. B., and Hanna, B. A. (1996). Collective Trust and Collective Action: The Decision to Trust as a Social Decision. In R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler (Ed.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 357--389). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Krebs, S. A., Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P. (2006). Virtual Teams and Group Member Dissimilarity. Small Group Research, 37(6), 721--741.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lau, D. C., and Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325--341.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and Social Perception in Computer-Mediated Communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321--341.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lipnak, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time, and Organizations with Technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Luzio--Lockett, A. (1995). Enhancing Relationships within Organizations: An Examination of a Proactive Approach to Bullying at Work. Employee Counseling Today, 7(1), 12--22.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lu, M., Watson--Manheim, M. B., Chudoba, K. M., & Wynn, E. (2006). Virtuality and Team Performance: Understanding the Impact of Variety of Practices. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 9(1), 4--23.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Malhotra, A., Majchrazak, A., and Rosen, B. (2007). Leading Virtual Teams. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 60--70.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marques, J.M. (1990). The Black Sheep Effect: Out-group Homogeneity in Social Comparison Settings, in D Abrams and MA Hogg (eds) Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances New York: Springer-Verlag 131.Google Scholar
- Martins, L.L., Gilson, L.L., & Maynard, M.T. (2004). Virtual Teams: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805--835.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709--734.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness. Organization Science, 11(5), 473--492. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and Cognition-based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24--59.Google Scholar
- McDonough III, E.F., Kahn, K.B. & Barczak, G. (2001). An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and co-located new product development teams. The Journal of New Product Innovation Management, 18(2), 110--120.Google ScholarCross Ref
- McGrath, J. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1351--1395). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
- McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and processes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- McKnight, H., Cummings, L., & Chervany, N. (1998). Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473--490.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. (1989). Intergroup Relations. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L.W. Porter (Ed.), Annual Review of Psychology (pp. 45--81). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar
- Meyerson, D., Weick, K., & Kramer, R. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Ed.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 166--195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994).The Relation between Group Cohesiveness and Performance: An Integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210--227.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential Contributions of Majority and Minority Influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23--32.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nemeth, C. (1992). Minority Dissent as a Stimulant to Group Performance. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. Simpson (Ed.), Group Process and Productivity (pp. 95--111). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- O'Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work Group Demography, Social Integration, and Turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 21--37.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pearce, J. L., Sommer, S. M., Morris, A., & Frideger, M. (1992). A configurational approach to interpersonal relations: Profiles of workplace social relations and task interdependence (Working paper). Irvine, CA: University of California, Graduate School of Management.Google Scholar
- Pelled, L.H. (1996). Demographic Diversity, Conflict, and Work Group Outcomes: An Intervening Process Theory. Organization Science, 7, 615--631.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peters, L. M., & Manz, C. C. (2007). Identifying antecedents of virtual team collaboration. Team Performance Management, Bradford, 13(3/4), 117--129.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational Demography. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 299--257). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Piccoli, G. and Ives, B. (2003). Trust and the Unintended Effects of Behavior Control in Virtual Teams. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 365--395. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5), 879--903.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Polzer, J. T., Crisp, B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the Faultline Concept to Geographically Dispersed Teams: How Colocated Subgroups Can Impair Group Functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 679--692.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual Teams: A Review of Current Literature and Directions for Future Research. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 6--36. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sarker, S., Lau, F., and Sahay, S. (2001). Using an Asapted Grounded Theory Approach for Inductive Theory Building About Virtual Team Development, Database for Advances in Information Systems, 32(1), 38--56. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sharda, R., Barr, S.H., and McDonnell, J.C. (1988). Decision Support System Effectiveness: A Review and an Empirical Test. Management Science, 34(2),139--159. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shriberg, A. Effectively Leading and Managing Virtual Teams. The Business Review, Cambridge, 12(2), I--II.Google Scholar
- Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M., and Ernst, H. (2009). How to Manage Virtual Teams.MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(4), 63--68.Google Scholar
- Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J., Chon, K. S., Claiborne, C. B., Johar, J. S., & Berkman, H. (1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 229--241.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stangor, C., Lynch, L., Duan, C., & Glass, B. (1992). Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 207--218.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Staples, S., and Ratnasingham, P. (1998). Trust: The Panacea of Virtual Management. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, 128--144. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Staples, S., and Webster, J. (2008). Exploring the Effects of Trust, Task Interdependence and Virtualness on Knowledge Sharing in Teams. Information Systems Journal, 18 (6), 617-- 632.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of Hidden Profiles by Decision-Making Groups: Solving a Problem versus Making a Judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426--434.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Thomas, D. and Bostrom, R. (2008). Building Trust and Cooperation through Technology Adaptation in Virtual Teams: Empirical Field Evidence. Information Systems Management, 25(1), 45--57. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74, 79--90.Google Scholar
- Thomas, D. C., Ravlin, E. C., & Wallace, A. W. (1994). Effect of Cultural Diversity in Management Training Groups. Paper presented at the Symposium of the Academy of Management Meeting.Google Scholar
- Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17--29.Google Scholar
- Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 547--579.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tsui, A. S., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond Simple Demographic Effects: the Importance of Relational Demography in Superior-Subordinate Dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 402--423.Google Scholar
- Turner, J. C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Ed.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 42---67). Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and Collective: Cognition and Social Context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454--463.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Van Ryssen, S. & Hayes Godar, S. (2000). Going International Without Going International: Multinational Virtual Teams, Journal of International Management, 6, 49--60.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wakefield, R., Leidner, D., & Garrison, G. (2008). A Model of Conflict, Leadership and Performance in Virtual Teams. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 434--455.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Walther, J. (1995). Relational Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observations over Time. Organization Science, 6(2), 186--203.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-Mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3--43.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Warkentin, M. E., Sayeed, L., & Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual Teams versus Face-to-Face Teams: An Exploratory Study of Web-based Conference System. Decision Sciences, 28(4), 975--996.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity's impact on group process and performance: Comparing culturally homogeneous and culturally diverse task groups. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 590--602.Google Scholar
- Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top Management Team Demography and Corporate Strategic Change. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 91--121.Google Scholar
- Williams, K.Y., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40 Years of Research. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 77--140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Workman, M. (2007). The proximal-virtual team continuum: A study of performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(6), 794--801. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zaheer, S. (1995). Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 348--363.Google Scholar
- Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational Demography: The Differential Effects of Age and Tenure Distributions on Technical Communication. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 353--376.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Globally distributed teams: the effect of diversity on trust, cohesion and individual performance
Recommendations
Globally distributed system developers: their trust expectations and processes
CSCW '13: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative workTrust remains a challenge in globally distributed development teams. In order to investigate how trust plays out in this context, we conducted a qualitative study of 5 multi-national IT organizations. We interviewed 58 individuals across 10 countries ...
Drivers and Performance Outcomes of Trust in International Strategic Alliances: The Role of Organizational Complexity
Trust between partners has become a key construct in interfirm relationship management. However, elucidating the precise nature of the trust-performance link in international strategic alliances remains an important theoretical and empirical challenge ...
Determinants of behavioral intention to mobile banking
With the improvement of mobile technologies and devices, banking users are able to conduct banking services at anyplace and at anytime. Recently, many banks in the world have provided mobile access to financial information. The reason to understand what ...
Comments