Go (Con)figure: Subgroups, Imbalance, and Isolates in Geographically Dispersed Teams

Abstract

Research regarding geographically dispersed teams (GDTs) is increasingly common and has yielded many insights into how spatio-temporal and socio-demographic factors affect GDT functioning and performance. Largely missing, however, is research on the effects of the basic geographic configuration of GDTs. In this study, we explore the impact of GDT configuration (i.e., the relative number of team members at different sites, independent of the characteristics of those members or the spatial and temporal distances among them) on GDT dynamics. In a quasi-experimental setting, we examine the effects of configuration using a sample of 62 six-person teams in four different one-and twosite configurations. As predicted, we find that configuration significantly affects team dynamicsindependent of spatio-temporal distance and socio-demographic factors. More specifically, we find that teams with geographically-based subgroups (defined as two or more members per site) have significantly less shared team identity, less effective transactive memory, more conflict, and more coordination issues.Furthermore, in teams with subgroups, imbalance (i.e., the uneven distribution of members across sites) exacerbates these effects; subgroups with a numerical minority of team members report significantly poorer scores on the same four outcomes. In contrast, teams with geographically isolated members (i.e., members who have no teammates at their site) outperform both balanced and imbalanced configurations.1

Subgroups in Agile and Traditional IT Project Teams

“…This perspective has already been employed by studies on virtual teams in non IT settings [18,48]. We extend this to the IT domain.…”

“…They found that subgroups form and that conflict is heightened and trust is decreased between the geographically dispersed subgroups. Another exception is O'Leary and Mortensen [48] that found that geographically based subgroups weaken team identification, lead to less effective transactive memory and increase team conflict.…”

The interplay of rules, asymmetries in language fluency, and team dynamics in culturally diverse teams

“…We found that because English had to be brought into play in order for the teams to interact, members of the LFS subgroups felt relatively intimidated and less powerful compared to those in the FS subgroups (see Table III). The LFSs, particularly in Teams A and B, apparently perceived a significant disadvantage due to their inability to contribute to and influence team interactions as much as their FS counterparts (O'Leary and Mortensen, 2010). Thus an in-group/out-group mentality started to emerge, along the lines shown in Table IV We suggest that fluency inequalities create the need for subordinate subgroups to seek to even out the imbalance and perceived power loss, and posit that rule emergence is a strategy in response to the subjective superiority/inferiority comparisons between subgroups to gain a more assertive identity (Tajfel and Turner, 1986).…”

The Impact of Multi-site Software Governance on Knowledge Management

“…Team size, role descriptions and role distribution are among those characteristics in distributed teams that can influence team coordination and communication and therefore team performance (e.g. [7], [13], [14], [15]). For example, Kofman and Klinger [16] suggest that role confusions (meaning the confusion caused by the difference between how the role is described and what people actually do within the role) may affect team performance and communication.…”