Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorO'Leary, Michael Boyer
dc.contributor.authorMortensen, Mark
dc.date.accessioned2011-11-18T19:35:58Z
dc.date.available2011-11-18T19:35:58Z
dc.date.issued2009-06
dc.identifier.issn1047-7039
dc.identifier.issn1526-5455
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/67073
dc.descriptionPublished online in Articles in Advance June 15, 2009en_US
dc.description.abstractResearch 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.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipBoston College (Research Incentive Grant)en_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherINFORMSen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0434en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/en_US
dc.sourceSSRNen_US
dc.titleGo (Con)figure: Subgroups, Imbalance, and Isolates in Geographically Dispersed Teamsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.citationO’Leary, M. B., and M. Mortensen. “Go (Con)figure: Subgroups, Imbalance, and Isolates in Geographically Dispersed Teams.” Organization Science 21.1 (2009) : 115-131.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentSloan School of Managementen_US
dc.contributor.approverMortensen, Mark
dc.contributor.mitauthorMortensen, Mark
dc.relation.journalOrganizational Scienceen_US
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's final manuscripten_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dspace.orderedauthorsO'Leary, M. B.; Mortensen, M.en
mit.licenseOPEN_ACCESS_POLICYen_US
mit.metadata.statusComplete


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record