Perceived Individual Collaboration Know-How Development Through Information Technology-Enabled Contextualization: Evidence from Distributed Teams

In today's global market environment, enterprises are increasingly turning to use of distributed teams to leverage their resources and address diverse markets. Individual members of structurally diverse distributed teams need to develop their collaboration know-how to work effectively with others on their team. The lack of face-to-face cues creates challenges in developing the collaboration know-how--challenges that can be overcome by communicating not just content, but also context. We derive a theoretical model from Te'eni's (2001) cognitive-affective model of communication to elaborate how information technology (IT) can support an individual's communication of context to develop collaboration know-how. Two hundred and sixty-three individuals working in structurally diverse distributed teams using a variety of virtual workspace technologies to support their communication needs were surveyed to test the model. Results indicate that when individuals perceive their task as nonroutine, there is a positive relationship between an individual's perceived degree of IT support for communicating context information and his collaboration know-how development. However, when individuals perceive their task as routine, partial IT support for contextualization is associated with lower levels of collaboration know-how development. This finding is attributed to individuals' misunderstanding of the conveyed context, or their struggling to utilize the context conveyed with partial IT support, making a routine task more prone to misunderstanding and leaving the user worse than if she had no IT support for contextualization. We end the paper by drawing theoretical and practical implications based on these findings.

[1]  J. McGrath.  Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP) , 1991 .

[2]  S. West,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. , 1994 .

[3]  P. Bentler,et al.  Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures , 1980 .

[4]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[5]  C. Cramton.  The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration , 2001 .

[6]  C. Perrow.  A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONS , 1967 .

[7]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[8]  Sten Jönsson,et al.  Designing semi-confusing information systems for organizations in changing environments , 1978 .

[9]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[10]  John R. Carlson,et al.  Channel Expansion Theory and the Experiential Nature of Media Richness Perceptions , 1999 .

[11]  Giyoo Hatano,et al.  Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[12]  Gloria Mark,et al.  Conventions for coordinating electronic distributed work: A longitudinal study of groupware use. , 2002 .

[13]  A. Majchrzak.  Perceived Individual Collaboration Know-How Development Through IT-Enabled Contextualization : Evidence from Distributed Teams , 2005 .

[14]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  A. Majchrzak,et al.  Can absence make a team grow stronger? , 2004, Harvard business review.

[16]  J. Brown,et al.  Organizing Knowledge , 1998 .

[17]  Jonathon N. Cummings.  Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[18]  F. Blackler.  Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation , 1995 .

[19]  Eric von Hippel,et al.  Locating Adaptive Learning: The Situated Nature of Adaptive Learning in Organizations , 1997 .

[20]  Stephanie D. Teasley,et al.  Perspectives on socially shared cognition , 1991 .

[21]  M. Maznevski,et al.  Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness , 2000 .

[22]  Peter M. Bentler,et al.  EQS : structural equations program manual , 1989 .

[23]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance , 1992 .

[24]  Albert H. Segars,et al.  Knowledge Management: An Organizational Capabilities Perspective , 2001, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[25]  Jennifer M. George,et al.  Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. , 1990 .

[26]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[27]  Dale L. Goodhue,et al.  Development and Measurement Validity of a Task-Technology Fit Instrument for User Evaluations of Inf , 1998 .

[28]  D. G. Weeks,et al.  Linear structural equations with latent variables , 1980 .

[29]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving , 1989, Distributed Artificial Intelligence.

[30]  Ann Majchrzak,et al.  Enabling knowledge creation in far-flung teams: Best practices for IT support and knowledge sharing , 2004, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[31]  Stephanie Watts,et al.  Informational Influence in Organizations: An Integrated Approach to Knowledge Adoption , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[32]  M. Paldam.  Social Capital: One or Many? Definition and Measurement , 2000 .

[33]  Jeffrey A. Alexander,et al.  Embedded Intergroup Relations in Interdisciplinary Teams , 1997 .

[34]  Traci Carte,et al.  In Pursuit of Moderation: Nine Common Errors and Their Solutions , 2003, MIS Q..

[35]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic - Mail Emotion/Adoption Study , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[36]  D. L. Gladstein.  Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. , 1984 .

[37]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  Understanding Why Team Members Won’t Share , 2000 .

[38]  Anirudh Krishna,et al.  SOCIAL CAPITAL ASSESSMENT TOOL , 1999 .

[39]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[40]  Mary E. Zellmer-Bruhn,et al.  The effects of demographic diversity and virtual work environments on knowledge processing in teams , 2001 .

[41]  J. Walther.  Group and Interpersonal Effects in International Computer-Mediated Collaboration , 1997 .

[42]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Outsiders on the Inside: Sharing Know-How Across Space and Time , 2002 .

[43]  P. Bentler,et al.  Comparative fit indexes in structural models. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[44]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Grounding in communication , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[45]  James Algina,et al.  Sample Size Tables for Correlation Analysis with Applications in Partial Correlation and Multiple Regression Analysis , 2003, Multivariate behavioral research.

[46]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  The Phenomenology of Conflict in Distributed Work Teams , 2002 .

[47]  Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi,et al.  Designing Information Technology to Support Distributed Cognition Ceo Publication G 93-16 (236) Designing Information Technology to Support Distributed Cognition Designing Information Technology to Support Distributed Cognition , 1994 .

[48]  Ann Majchrzak,et al.  Radical Innovation Without Collocation: A Case Study at Boeing-Rocketdyne , 2001, MIS Q..

[49]  S. Weisband.  Maintaining Awareness in Distributed Team Collaboration: Implications for Leadership and Performance , 2002 .

[50]  R. Grant,et al.  Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration , 2022 .

[51]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication , 1986 .

[52]  Gabriel Szulanski.  The Process of Knowledge Transfer: A Diachronic Analysis of Stickiness , 2000 .

[53]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  A Theory of Task/Technology Fit and Group Support Systems Effectiveness , 1998, MIS Q..

[54]  Dov Te'eni,et al.  Review: A Cognitive-Affective Model of Organizational Communication for Designing IT , 2001, MIS Q..

[55]  G. Ryle,et al.  心的概念 = The concept of mind , 1962 .

[56]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Technology Adaptation: The Case of a Computer-Supported Inter-Organizational Virtual Team , 2000, MIS Q..

[57]  G. Ryle,et al.  The concept of mind. , 2004, The International journal of psycho-analysis.

[58]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Measures of Perrow's Work Unit Technology: An Empirical Assessment and a New Scale , 1983 .

[59]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[60]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  The (Currently) Unique Advantages of Collocated Work , 2002 .

[61]  M. Markus.  Electronic Mail as the Medium of Managerial Choice , 1994 .

[62]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Technology adaption: the case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team 1 , 2000 .

[63]  I. Nonaka,et al.  Enabling Knowledge Creation , 2000 .

[64]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance , 1995, MIS Q..

[65]  Les Gasser,et al.  A Design Theory for Systems That Support Emergent Knowledge Processes , 2002, MIS Q..

[66]  Christoph H. Loch,et al.  Collaboration, motivation, and the size of organizations , 1996, J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer..

[67]  D. G. Weeks,et al.  Interrelations Among Models For The Analysis Of Moment Structures. , 1979, Multivariate behavioral research.

[68]  Jennifer L. Berdahl,et al.  Groups, Technology, and Time , 2002 .

[69]  R CarlilePaul.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries , 2002 .

[70]  Fernando Olivera,et al.  Knowledge acquisition in virtual teams , 2000 .

[71]  Jagdip Singh,et al.  Consumer Trust, Value, and Loyalty in Relational Exchanges , 2002 .

[72]  Barbara D. Klein,et al.  User evaluations of IS as surrogates for objective performance , 2000, Inf. Manag..