Go (Con)figure: Subgroups, Imbalance, and Isolates in Geographically Dispersed Teams
Name
Mortensen_Go(Con)figure subgroups.pdf
Size
181.18 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
2e267e7095837df2621ddb09674e410d
Author(s)
O'Leary, Michael Boyer
Mortensen, Mark
Date Issued
June 2009
Journal
Organizational Science
Publisher
INFORMS
Citation
O’Leary, M. B., and M. Mortensen. “Go (Con)figure: Subgroups, Imbalance, and Isolates in Geographically Dispersed Teams.” Organization Science 21.1 (2009) : 115-131.
Version
Author's final manuscript
Abstract
Research regarding geographically dispersed teams (GDTs) is increasingly common and has yielded many insights regarding the effects of spatio-temporal and socio-demographic factors on 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 individual, subgroup, and team-level 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 two-site configurations. As predicted based on social categorization, we find that configuration significantly affects team dynamics—independent of spatio-temporal distance and socio-demographic factors. More specifically, we find that the social categorization in teams with geographically based subgroups (defined as two or more members per site) triggers significantly weaker identification with the team, less effective transactive memory, more conflict, and more coordination problems. Furthermore, imbalance in the size of subgroups (i.e., the uneven distribution of members across sites) invokes a competitive, coalitional mentality that exacerbates these effects; subgroups with a numerical minority of team members report significantly poorer scores on identification, transactive memory, conflict, and coordination problems. In contrast, teams with geographically isolated members (i.e., members who have no teammates at their site) have better scores on these same four outcomes than both balanced and imbalanced configurations.
Description
Published online in Articles in Advance June 15, 2009
MIT Department
Sloan School of Management
Terms of Use
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0
Persistent DSpace Link
DOI of Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0434
