GLOBAL TEAMS IN A MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISE: A SOCIAL CAPITAL AND SOCIAL NETWORKS PERSPECTIVE

spongereasonInternet and Web Development

Nov 12, 2013 (3 years and 11 months ago)

92 views






GLOBAL TEAMS IN A MU
LTINATIONAL ENTERPRI
SE:

A SOCIAL CAPITAL AND

SOCIAL NETWORKS PERS
PECTIVE






Martha L. Maznevski

McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia

Charlottesville, VA USA 22903

t (804) 924
-
3272; f (804) 924
-
7074; email
martha@virginia.edu



Nicholas A. Athanassiou

College of Business, Northeastern University

360 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115

t (617) 373
-
5759; f (617) 373
-
8628; email
Nathanassiou@cba.neu.edu


Lena Zander

Institute of International Business, Stockholm School of Economics

SE
-
113 83 Stockholm, Sweden

t +46 8 732 95 19; f +46 8 31 99 27; email
Lena.Zander@hhs.se










Work In
Progress to be Presented at

Organization Science Winter Conference

Colorado, February 2000


Global Teams and Social Capital


2

GLOBAL TEAMS IN A MU
LTINATIONAL ENTERPRI
SE:

A SOCIAL CAPITAL AND

SOCIAL NETWORKS PERS
PECTIVE


Abstract


In this paper we describe how global team effectiveness can

be conceptualized and examined
from the perspective of social capital. Unlike previous research, which has tended to be
unidimensional, the social capital perspective allows us to analyze structure and process in global
teams at multiple levels of analys
is in a dynamic way. At the same time, the phenomenon of
global teams highlights some important ambiguities and equivocalities in the social capital
literature. We identify these dilemmas, and suggest that an empirical study of global teams can
help to e
nrich social capital theory itself. We describe the methodology we are currently using to
study global teams, including details of variables measured and procedures.


Global Teams and Social Capital


3

GLOBAL TEAMS IN A MU
LTINATIONAL ENTERPRI
SE:

A SOCIAL CAPITAL AND

SOCIAL NETWORKS PERS
PE
CTIVE


Made possible by communications technology and improved transportation, and made
necessary by rapidly increasing globalization of economies, global teams are ubiquitous in
today’s multinational enterprises (MNEs). For example, global teams in servi
ce firms audit
multinational clients, prepare bond and equity offerings for multinationals, facilitate international
mergers and acquisitions, and service global advertising clients. MNEs also use these teams to
execute their worldwide strategies, and to
coordinate and control activities such as new product
development and introductions across world markets. The effectiveness of global teams is
critical to a multinational organization’s continued competitive success.

Yet, although a few studies have examin
ed MBA groups or conducted case
-
based
research,
(e.g., Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998; Maznevski & Chudoba, forthcoming; Watson &
Kumar, 1993)
, very little empirical research has been conducted on such teams in their
organizational setting. This is in part because of the
complexity of the issue. A complete
explanation must incorporate individual, relational, organizational and contextual factors in a
dynamic way, and previous conceptual approaches and empirical methodologies have not been
able to capture all of these elem
ents adequately.

In this research, we build on recent ideas about social capital to identify patterns in the
seemingly unmanageable mix of factors that describe global teams and the elements they face.
At a generalized level, a global team’s task is to ma
ke and implement decisions concerning
issues international in scope. To do this, the team members must manage their internal
dynamics to combine their knowledge, skills, and capabilities


intellectual capital
(Nahapiet &
Ghoshal, 1998)



and generate new, high quality in
tellectual capital. They must also persuade or
Global Teams and Social Capital


4

influence other members of the organization and external constituencies to adapt the new
intellectual capital and/or modify their behavior in some way. Social capital, or the “resources
embedded in a social

structure which are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions”
(Lin,
1999: 35)
, has been argued to influence both the generation of intellectual capital and the process
of influencing people to implement decisions
(Burt, 1992; Lin, 1999; Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998)
. Thus, the social capital perspective simultaneously captures both the decision
-
making
and implementing aspects of the global team’s task, and the internal dynamics and e
xternal
activities necessary for achieving the team’s mandate.

In the following paragraphs we describe global teams and their role in today’s MNEs,
demonstrating how a social capital perspective can add significantly to our understanding of
effective globa
l team dynamics. We then examine social capital in more detail, and discuss three
aspects of global team social capital that are also of current relevance to social capital theory
development in general. In the last sections, we outline the methodology t
hrough which we are
collecting data to examine these relationships empirically.

The Current State of Global Teams

A global team is an internationally distributed group of people, identified by its members
and the organization as a team unit, with a specif
ic mandate to make or implement decisions that
are international in scope
(Canney Davison & Ward, 1999; Maznevski & Chudoba,
forthcoming)
. The internal dynamics of global teams are rendered highly complex by a group of
three characteristics they typically share:

task, composition, and communications configuration.
For each of these characteristics, the manifestation most often found in global teams is that most
closely associated with complex dynamics and strong barriers to effectiveness. Moreover, while
all or
ganizational teams must engage in external activities as well as pay attention to internal
Global Teams and Social Capital


5

dynamics
(Ancona, 1990; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992)
, these three characteristics complicate how
the team coordinates the external activities and links them with internal dynamics.

A global team’s task is, by definition, international in scope.
While it is possible for such
a task to be relatively simple, in reality very few global teams are formed to address simple
mandates
(Canney Davison & Ward, 1999)
. International tasks incorporate elements spanning
different social, legal, political, and economi
c environments, with each element varying in terms
of stability and uncertainty. A global team’s task, then, tends to be highly complex, with the
required information and resources being unstructured. The global tasks addressed by these
teams tend to be
among the most important in the organization, encompassing high penalties for
poor performance. They also generally require that members engage in multiple subtasks, from
information gathering to creative tasks
(McGrath, 1984)
. To effectively complete tasks that are
important, complex, dynamic, unstruct
ured, and multi
-
faceted, team members must have strong
relationships and internal processes, continually adjusting the dynamics for changes in the task’s
pace and demands
(Cohen & Bailey
, 1997; Gersick, 1988; Gersick, 1989; Watson & Kumar,
1993)
.

Although a global team could be composed of members who are similar to each other but
located in different units, global teams tend to have highly diverse composition in two
respects
(Canney Davison & Ward, 1999; DiStefano & Maznevski, forthcoming)
. First, members usually
represent different parts of the world and therefore tend to have different cultural backgrounds,
bringing different values and expectations for how to work
together and achieve the team’s
mandate. Second, because of the strategic nature of most international tasks, global teams are
usually composed of members from different professional backgrounds, and sometimes even
members from different partnering organi
zations. These members bring with them different
Global Teams and Social Capital


6

priorities for information
-
gathering and decision
-
making, as well as expectations for group
dynamics. Research on group processes and decision
-
making in diverse teams suggests that
effective dynamics, alth
ough possible, are difficult to achieve, less likely to emerge than in
homogeneous teams, and take longer to emerge if they do so
(DiStefano & Maznevski,
forthcoming; Maznevski, 1994; Milliken & Martins, 1996; Watson & Kumar, 1993)
. Thus,
although global teams’ tasks generally require the most demanding of relationships and
processes, their compo
sition tends to raise enormous barriers to building these relationships and
processes in the first place.

The simple fact that global team members are distributed throughout different parts of the
world affects how the team configures its communication. M
embers must coordinate their
discussions across time zones and around travel schedules, using a wide variety of
communication media with the configuration changing frequently
(Lipnack & Stamps, 1997)
.
While the physical units of most large organizations are well
-
connected throug
h intranets, even
these systems cannot always be relied upon for spontaneous communication among global team
members who travel, or who are members of partner organizations or subsidiaries. Maintaining
effective group dynamics over these types of configur
ations requires paying explicit attention to
rhythms of interaction and managing the constraints imposed on spontaneous communication by
distance and technology
(Maznevski & Chudoba, forthcoming)
.

The team’s external activities are also affected by the thre
e characteristics of task,
composition, and configuration. Ancona
(Ancona, 1990)

describes the major external activities
of a group as informing, parading, and probing, combining different levels and types of vertical
and horizontal communications
(Ancona & Caldwell, 1992)
. The best
-
performing of their
studies’ new
-
product deve
lopment teams engaged in a comprehensive strategy of cycling
Global Teams and Social Capital


7

through periods of internal and external focus, using each type of communication at different
times. For the mandates typically assigned to global teams, all of these external activities are
lik
ely to play a critical role. To be effective, then, the global team must engage in each of them
at the appropriate point in the group’s processes, moving back and forth between an external
focus and an internal focus, managing a more complex dynamic than
other types of teams.

External activities are also likely to be affected by a global team’s composition.
According to research on demographic, cultural, and professional diversity, the different
members of the team will likely prefer to engage in differen
t types of external activities, and to
engage in specific activities in different ways
(Jackson, 1991; Milliken & Martins, 1996)
. While
these differences can be leveraged to enhance the effectiveness of the team’s external activities,
leveraging them well is difficult and only realized with explicit attention paid to the com
plexity
of the dynamics
(DiStefano & Maznevski, forthcoming)
.

Although no empirical research has been published on the relationship between a global
team’s configuration and its external activities, it seems self
-
evident that coordinating the
activiti
es and their results is much more difficult to the extent that team members are distributed
around the globe and in business units that cannot interconnect easily. Like composition,
though, configuration could also be leveraged to help the team. A broad
configuration could
enable the team to engage in broader horizontal communication for coordinating work and
obtaining feedback, more comprehensive horizontal communication for scanning of the
environment, and more pervasive vertical communication for influ
encing the views of top
management and obtaining resources
(Ancona & Caldwell, 1992)
.

Traditional team research has addressed most of these relationships between team
characteristics and effectiveness individually and at single points in time, although significantly
Global Teams and Social Capital


8

more atte
ntion has been paid to internal process than to external ones
(Cohen & Bailey, 1997)
.
However, the sum of this research does not provide clear directions for understanding what will
happen when this complex set of characteristics is combined, especially as the team works
together over

time in an ever
-
changing environment. The limited body of longitudinal case
-
based research on teams suggests that a more holistic approach, encompassing multiple
characteristics and describing ongoing dynamics, will better illuminate patterns of effectiv
eness
in global teams
(Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Gersick, 1989; Gersick, 1994; Maznevski &
Chudoba, forthcoming)
.

In this

research, following a recent move in the strategy, organizational theory and
individual behavior literatures, we introduce to the study of global teams the social capital
perspective. Unlike more reductionist approaches that focus on one or two aspects o
f team
dynamics and performance at a time, a social capital perspective adopts the assumptions of
structuration theory, incorporating structural and process elements and the interrelationships
among them over time
(DeSanctis & Poole, 1994; Giddens, 1984)
. The social capital
perspective is concerned with the patterns of relationships among

members of a network, how
those relationships are built, and how they are drawn upon as resources to accomplish individual
and organizational tasks. Because the emphasis is on broader patterns and dynamics, it is well
-
suited to the study of global teams
in the context of multinational enterprises. We turn now to a
brief overview of social capital as it has emerged in the management literature.

Conceptual Background on Social Capital and Global Teams

Social capital is the value of the intangible resources

lying in relationships among people.
It can be drawn upon by those in the relationship to help them achieve something they could not
otherwise do
(Burt, 1992; Coleman, 1988; Lin, 1999; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998)
.
Social capital
Global Teams and Social Capital


9

describes a manager’s relationships with others and complements human capital and financial
capital
(Burt, 1992: 8)
. Social capital differs fundamentally from human and financial capital
because it exists only through a specific relationship between two people or
groups. No single
actor can claim ownership over social capital, which disappears when the relationship on which
it depends is severed. In this study, following the major trends in the literature, we conceptualize
social capital as assets that exist in t
he broader environment, that can be accessed by many actors
who are aware of them
(Coleman, 1990)
, yet are used better by some than others to achieve their
objectives.

Each aspect of social capital reflects some aspect of the social structure owned in
common by the parties in a relationship. Because of f
riendships and obligations, social capital
cannot be traded easily; and it enables the achievement of ends that would be costly or
impossible without it. This concept is a strong element of the resource based view of the firm,
which describes competitive a
dvantage derived from resources that are rare and inimitable
(Barney, 1991)
. Within the structure, social capital increases individuals’ efficiency of action, as
networks of social relations increase information diffusion efficiency and minimize redundancy.
High levels of trust reduce the probability of oppo
rtunism, the need for costly monitoring, and
transaction costs.

Social capital is neither inherently good nor bad. On the one hand, it encourages
cooperative behavior, and facilitates development of innovative organization forms. It is central
to the u
nderstanding of institutional dynamics, innovation, and value creation. Conversely, it can
be harmful when strong norms and mutual identification exert a powerful positive influence on
group performance, and produce collective blindness
(Coleman, 1990: 302)
. It is the situation
that

determines social capital’s effectiveness.

Global Teams and Social Capital


10

The social capital perspective is particularly appropriate for the study of global teams.
By beginning with the general approach of identifying resources in relationships among team
members and between team memb
ers and others in their environment, social capital highlights
patterns of value creation in the complex and ever
-
changing sets of relationships needed by
global team members. Social capital becomes more important as “… competition becomes more
imperfect”

(Burt, 1992: 10). Nowhere is competition more imperfect than in the MNE context.
Because an MNE operates in multiple national environments, rules of competition become less
clear when a managers’ responsibilities extend their reach across borders. Also,

these rules
change constantly when the firm competes across multiple national markets with multinational
competitors.
The basic ideas of social capital theory, emphasizing the importance of
relationships and their value for achieving tasks otherwise not
possible, support research on
MNEs which finds that expatriate manager assignments and normative integration are the most
effective coordination and control mechanisms for such world
-
wide organizations
(B
oyacigiller,
1990; Edstrom & Galbraith, 1977; Roth et al., 1991)
.

Characteristics of Social Capital

Nahapiet and Ghoshal
(1998
)

introduced a comprehensive framework with which one
can view the importance of social capital for
MNEs. This framework explicitly suggests certain
conditions under which social capital becomes an enabling and enhancing mechanism for sharing
and exchangi
ng intellectual capital, or knowledge, an important part of a global team’s task.
Intellectual capital consists of individual and social, group
-
level, knowledge
(Spender, 1996)
.
Further, this knowledge can be tacit or explicit
(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Polanyi, 1962)
.
The
linkage between social capital and the creation of new intellectual capital in an MNE is crucial
because it

addresses the MNE managers’ need to understand its multinational activity network


Global Teams and Social Capital


11

its environments, its nature, and its linkages

embedded in different environments across
national borders.

To place Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s perspective in a broader conte
xt we turn to Lin (1999).
Lin suggests four elements of social capital explain why embedded resources in social networks
enhance the outcomes of actions:

(a)

a social network facilitates flow of useful
information
;

(b)

an actor’s social ties in a network wield
i
nfluence

on others who play a critical role in
decisions

(c)

social tie access to resources offer a certification for the actor’s
social credentials

(d)

access to social relations
reinforce

an actor’s identity and his/her recognition in a
network.

According to Li
n’s view, control is an outcome of social capital, not an explanation for
why benefits accrue to those with good relations in a social network. These relations enable the
actor to access and use social capital to control and influence. Furthermore, there

are collective
assets such as culture, norms and trust, clearly distinguishable from social capital, that enable
access to and creation of social capital
(Lin, 1999)
.

Following Coleman (1988), Lin describes the development of social capital from a
neoclassical economic point of view, incorporating basic tenets of so
ciology. In this view, social
capital is created through a capitalization process in which structural and positional variations
among actors and variations in their collective assets result in value for the relationship. This
relationship, in turn, can l
ead to desirable outcomes for a network actor. Actors’ structural and
positional attributes include their human capital and connectedness to other external resources,
Global Teams and Social Capital


12

while collective assets are relational attributes, such as trust and norms, that exist a
mong actors.
The capitalization process determines how accessible and usable an actor’s contacts and
resources are, and leads to instrumental outcome (such as wealth, power, reputation), or to
expressive returns (such as physical health, mental health, li
fe satisfaction). In the context of
management, achieving the organizational objective is an instrumental outcome, while individual
satisfaction from the work is an expressive return.

In their framework, Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) suggest that social capi
tal can be
viewed across three interrelated dimensions: the structural, the cognitive, and the relational.
Social capital’s first dimension, the
structural

dimension, is the overall pattern of connections
among actors in a team network and the linkages of

these actors beyond their team that form its
external network. This is equivalent to a combination of Lin’s structural precondition to capital
creation along with the accessibility aspect of the capitalization process.

For example, studying the internal
global team network configuration establishes its
pattern of internal linkages


the presence or absence of ties between actors


and reveals the role
each team member assumes in the process of achieving team goals. Studying the pattern of each
team member
’s links to actors beyond the team’s boundaries reveals the nature of these links to
actors in the MNE’s world
-
wide activity network and beyond the those boundaries in its diverse
cross
-
border environments. The nature of a global team’s embeddedness in its

external network


the structural dimension of its social capital


can determine the effectiveness with which it can
accomplish its goals. Further, this external network reveals the potential connectivity of the team
to other networks created for one pur
pose that may be used for another purpose
(Coleman,

1988)
.

Global Teams and Social Capital


13

Interestingly, these external links allow the team to build social capital in excess to that
which can be observable from the global team member’s point of view. The team’s social capital
stocks can be enhanced by its reputation among MNE actors w
ho know of its work but are not
known to the MNT members
(Borgatti, 1998: 45, contribution by Lichter)
. In Lin’s terms this is
explained because social ties that give a global team access to social capital resources
create a
certification of its
social credentials

and
reinforce

its identity and recognition
(Lin, 1999)
. In this
respect it becomes obvious that team links to important external actors are meaningful in a
political sense because these actors can be expected to be linked to other important actors.

Social capital’s seco
nd dimension according to Nahapiet and Ghoshal, the
cognitive

dimension, includes those resources that provide shared representations, interpretations, and
systems of meaning among team members. The cognitive dimension is reflected in the team
members’ sha
red language and codes and becomes the engine that enables the generation of the
global team’s new intellectual capital. For instance, this is the mechanism through which team
members


once connected


can share each other’s tacit knowledge
(Polanyi, 1966)

through
planned or ad
-
hoc face
-
to
-
face interacti
ons
(Athanassiou &

Nigh, 1999)
. The cognitive
dimension extends to the global team’s external network as well. Each team member’s links to
actors beyond the team’s boundaries help the team access the cognitive dimensions of these
external networks. Thus, the team as a who
le can access intellectual capital existing in their
environment. This access to intellectual capital from outside the team enhances its ability to
create new intellectual capital, a necessary part of achieving the team’s goals. Lin (1999) would
appear to

suggest that what Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) articulate as the cognitive dimension of
social capital may be part of the group’s collective assets that enable the capitalization, (i.e.
formation), of social capital.

Global Teams and Social Capital


14

The
relational

dimension of social cap
ital described by Nahapiet and Ghoshal is the
result of a history of interactions among group members, in our case among global team
members. It represents a behavioral aspect rather than actor bonds or structural embeddedness.
This dimension reflects so
cial capital stocks created from relational assets, which can be
discussed in terms of respect and friendship, trust and trustworthiness, norms and sanctions,
obligations and expectations, and identity and identification. Clearly, this relational dimensio
n
corresponds with Lin’s description of collective assets that enable the creation of social capital
rather than actually being an integral part of social capital.

As in the case of the structural and cognitive aspects, a global team member must have
stron
g relations with other members to tap into social capital in the broader network. For
example, the team member’s position in both the team’s internal and external networks creates
two sets of relationships. The dual role can therefore result in either (or

both) synergistic or
conflicting pressures on the team member. If this person serves as an expatriate manager and a
member of a subsidiary company’s top management team


a special case of a global team


he
may have developed high levels of trust, frien
dship and identity with the other subsidiary
company top management team members. This close relationship with local managers can make
his loyalties suspect among the MNE’s headquarters managers, who in turn expect this expatriate
manager to owe his allegi
ance primarily to the parent entity
. This expatriate’s effectiveness at
the local level may become impaired as a result of his successful integration in the local
environment, because his contribution to the subsidiary that should have emanated from his
headquarters contacts may be drastically minimized.

Application to Global Teams

Global Teams and Social Capital


15

When the social capital perspective is adopted, the global team no longer need be
conceptualized as a bounded group


which would lead to a focus on internal processes


or a
s
ingle entity within an organization


which would imply a focus on situational or strategic
factors. Instead, we can now conceptualize the MNT as a network within a network (Figure 1).
The MNT itself is a network with individuals serving as nodes located

in different business units.
Each of these nodes (individual members) is itself embedded in other networks within their own
separate business units, other parts of the MNC, and outside the MNC. Finally, the MNT itself
can be seen as a single node in a
network which includes other units in the MNC and individuals
and groups outside the MNC. To be effective, the MNT must be able to access high quality
social capital in each of the three levels of networks, and use the social capital to create
knowledge t
hrough which it meets its objectives (Figure 2).

Insert Figures 1 and 2 about here

For example, suppose an audit team from a large multinational public accounting firm
were auditing a large multinational client such as ABB. For such an important client, t
he audit
firm may well want the team to do more than conduct a narrow audit, and also provide
comprehensive recommendations for improving the client’s world
-
wide profitability (perhaps
with the help of the consulting branch of the audit firm). The audit

team’s task, therefore, is for
members to use their own expertise (intellectual capital) to gather information about the client
and the industry (more intellectual capital), and combine it among themselves (creation of new
intellectual capital) in a way
that helps the client (dissemination of new intellectual capital). To
the audit firm, the team is a unit with a network relationship with the team’s supervisory
manager. This manager


probably a senior partner from head office


assembles and supervises

the team and treats it as a single entity for administrative purposes, assigning it a mandate,
Global Teams and Social Capital


16

providing access to key resources, and assessing its outcome with respect to the client firm’s
strategic expectations and the audit firm’s standards.

The audit
team itself will be composed of members from the audit firm’s branches from
several cities around the world to capture diverse functional and geographic experiences related
to the MNC client. Each audit team member will have relationships within his or he
r own
network in the audit firm's world
-
wide organization. Also, she/he will have these relationships
outside the team (including, perhaps, with the team’s supervising partner), within the client’s
organization in various overseas operations, and in the
broader communities around the world
within which these operations are embedded. The collective external relationships of the audit
team members create the external network within which the team is embedded. These
relationships can be used to facilitate t
he team’s work in completing the audit.

Internally, the team must coordinate its members to leverage their external network
relationships and create a thorough personal understanding of the client’s world
-
wide activities.
Then the audit team members must
combine their individual understanding of audit information
to compose a comprehensive report (new intellectual capital), which must be presented to,
accepted by, and acted upon by senior partners and the client’s senior management (action
resulting from u
se of new intellectual capital).

To summarize, the team’s social capital is the set of relationship
-
based resources
available to the team through its internal and external networks that enable it to gain, combine,
and distribute knowledge and information i
n order to suggest desirable change in a client’s
organization. A global team’s performance, therefore, can be understood as a function of its
social capital, generated and leveraged through its external and internal networks and through the
interplay amo
ng them. This perspective builds on previous research on individual dimensions of
Global Teams and Social Capital


17

team performance by focusing on the role of relationships in bringing those individual
dimensions together.

Assessment of Social Capital Literature and Research Questions

Th
e social capital perspective is still in its infancy and, understandably, several
ambiguities and equivocalities exist in the literature. Furthermore, little empirical work has been
conducted to test the theory in the management context beyond single dime
nsions of social
capital and single antecedents and/or consequences, usually at an individual level of analysis.
This work has been important in testing the waters for management research and establishing a
foothold, but does not take advantage of the com
prehensiveness of the theory. Our application
of social capital theory to global teams uses the theory much more holistically, to illuminate a
much broader phenomenon. And as we examine global teams empirically under the rubric of
social capital theory,
we will be able to shed light on some of the ambiguities and equivocalities
remaining.

In particular, we identify three issues that remain unresolved in the social capital
literature, which are also particularly relevant to global teams. While we cannot m
ake
propositions about these issues, we can develop focused questions to guide our research.
Studying these issues in global teams will uncover the important patterns of social capital in the
teams, and will also push the boundaries of our thinking about
social capital. The three issues
are trust, ideal configurations of networks, and the transfer of tacit knowledge.

Trust
. Trust is ubiquitous in discussions of social capital
(e.g., Coleman, 1988; Lin,
1999; Nah
apiet & Ghoshal, 1998)
. However, the social capital literature does not tend to draw
on the growing literature on trust in organizations to define the c
onstruct or operationalize it
(Mayer et al., 1995; Whitener et al., 1998)
. For example, the organizational behavior on trust has
Global Teams and Social Capital


18

identified several types of trust
(e.g., Lewicki & Bunker, 1996)
, a fact which is only obliquely
acknowledged in social capital literature
(Cohen & Fields, 1999)
. We also know from this
literature that trust is de
fined differently and has different antecedents and consequences in
different cultures
(Whitener et al., 2000)
. Given the diverse composition of a global team and its
complex combination of task and configuration, it is impossible to predict exactly what role trust
will play in the

social capital of a global team, and what its antecedents and consequences will
be. Carefully examining trust and social capital in global teams, grounded by previous research
in the area of organizational trust, will help us understand both global teams

and social capital
better.

Question 1
: What types of trust characterize the social capital in a global team? How is
trust
-
based social capital built and drawn upon over time, given the diverse composition
and changing environment of the team?

Configurati
on.

There is some disagreement in the literature about whether open, loose
networks outperform closed, dense networks or vice versa
(Burt, 1992; Coleman, 1990; Putnam,
1993)
. Lin (1999) argues that the most appropriate configuration seems to be associated with
task: open, loose networks are best for gathering information and accessing new resources, while
closed, dense networks are best for maintaining cohesive relationship
s. However, a global
team’s mandate usually requires both types of tasks. Global team members must gather
information from a wide variety of sources to make their decisions (open networks). But if the
decisions require implementing change (as most do),
then the influence process requires the
maintenance of relationships (closed networks). It is possible that global team members
maintain different sets or types of networks simultaneously. For example, each member may
have both an information
-
generating
network, and a decision
-
implementing network. These
Global Teams and Social Capital


19

networks may or may not overlap substantially (and may or may not be related to the formal
organizational structure). Carefully examining the different types of networks of global team
members, and how
they use their different networks over time, can help us understand both
global teams and social capital better.

Question 2.

What is the most effective configuration of social capital for achieving
global team effectiveness? Do effective teams have multi
ple configurations
simultaneously? How do the configurations change over time?

Transfer and Generation of Tacit Knowledge
. Social capital has been heralded as the
mechanism that helps to transfer and combine tacit knowledge to create new intellectual cap
ital
(Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). However, issues remain unresolved here, too. The more global a
company’s strategy is


and, presumably, the more globally integrated a global team’s task is


the more tacit knowledge must be shared for effectiveness
(Athanassiou & Nigh, 1999)
.

However, the more different members are from each other, the more difficult it is for them to
share tacit knowledge because they have few common experiences upon which to base such a
transfer
(Polanyi, 1966)
. Also, the more tacit knowledge is required, the more the team must
meet face
-
to
-
face in rich en
vironments to share the knowledge taking advantage of multiple
sources of sensory reception
(Athanassiou & Nigh, 1999; Polanyi, 1966)
. Unfortunately, the
more globally distributed a team is, the less likely it is to meet face
-
to
-
face with any regularity.
Carefully examining the transfer and combination of tacit knowledge wit
hin a global team’s
internal and external networks over time will provide us with a much better understanding of
both global teams and social capital.

Question 3
. In this extreme environment, where tacit knowledge transfer is critically
important but most

difficult, how do effective global teams transfer and generate tacit
Global Teams and Social Capital


20

knowledge? Which antecedents to social capital, and which vehicles for social capital,
are most important for this part of the global team’s task?


An Empirical Study of Global Teams

We

are in the initial stages of a longitudinal multimethod, multi
-
case study on social capital in
global teams to address the questions identified above. We have elected to pursue this
methodology to gather rich data on a small number of global teams. Wit
h this in
-
depth
examination, we will explore the various elements of social capital and the relationships among
them, and identify patterns associated with the characteristics of global teams and changes over
time.

Sample
. We will study four teams from ea
ch of six different organizational sites, with two sites
focusing on global financial services, two sites focusing on issues related to multinational merger
implementation, and two sites focusing on research and development. The sample size of 24
teams i
n six sites was selected to maximize both internal and external validity. The multimethod
investigation we plan is highly intensive, and following more than this number of teams would
compromise our ability to track information and coordinate it reliably.

However, having three
types of settings with several teams from each setting will enable us to compare across
organizations and tasks, controlling for structural variables at various levels.

In each of the financial services organizations, one team will
be the top management team with
overall responsibility for global integration of operations, one team will be responsible for a
specific aspect of global integration (e.g., information systems), and two teams will provide a
specific service to global clien
ts (e.g., global audit team). One financial services organization
Global Teams and Social Capital


21

has committed to participate, and several others have expressed interest. In the organizations
engaged in multinational mergers, each of the four teams will be responsible for implementing

a
specific aspect of the merger (e.g., information systems, human resources systems, sales and
customer accounts). A consortium of multinational organizations has agreed to participate in this
aspect of the project. The research and development sites wi
ll be developing global products and
coordinating global basic research. One organization has committed to participate, and several
others have expressed interest.

Variables to be Measured
. Four categories of variables will be measured: variables at the
individual and group levels of analysis, and variables that are relatively stable and those that are
expected to change over time (see Appendix 1). The individual
-
level stable variables include
demographics, cultural background, experience, and location.

The group
-
level stable variables
include task, composition summary, and physical and communication configuration. The
individual
-
level variables expected to change include attitudes towards the team and its task, and
perceptions of own and others’ roles
in the team and its task. Finally, the group
-
level variables
expected to change include internal dynamics, several types of network configurations
(information, advice, joint decision
-
making, etc.) both within the team and between team
members and their e
xternal contacts, and performance.

Where available and applicable, established measures with strong psychometric
properties will be used in this research. For example, cultural orientation will be measured using
the Cultural Perspectives Questionnaire
(Maznevski et al., 1997)
, and internal team dynamics
will be assessed using the Team Climate Inventory
(Anderson & West, 1996)
. We will assess
multiple networks for each team, including networks associated with advice, trust, friendship,
task
-
specific and general work information, resource procurement. The g
athering of network
Global Teams and Social Capital


22

data will follow well
-
established procedures, and will capture both the quality of the network
relationship and their direction
(Borgatti et al., 1998; Burt, 1992; Krackhardt, 1990)
. All other
data will be gathered using multiple methods, including analysis of documentation and
interviews with managers to whom the team reports and key receivers and users of the team’s
o
utput, observation of meetings, and logs of communications activity among members (see
Appendix 2).

Procedure.

Each team will be observed over at least an eighteen month period. Stable
variables will be assessed at the beginning of the study using inte
rviews or questionnaires, as
appropriate. These variables will be monitored for movement thereafter. Dynamic variables
will be measured every six months. The timeline for each team is shown in Appendix 3.

Much of the data will be gathered during interv
iews with team members and people
external to the team who play an important role in the team’s functioning (managers to whom the
team reports, receivers of the output, key information or resource providers, etc.). The first
interview with each team membe
r and key external contact will be conducted in a face
-
to
-
face
setting. Subsequent interviews will be conducted over the phone or face
-
to
-
face, depending on
logistical considerations and the level of trust the participant demonstrates in the research
proc
ess (with less trust and more hesitation, the research team will make an effort to conduct the
interview in person). All interviews will be tape
-
recorded and transcribed.

Questionnaires will be available both on paper and on secure internet sites, and
par
ticipants will be encouraged to submit their data using whichever format they are most
comfortable with.

Actual interaction activity will be captured using observation of meetings and scheduled
conference calls wherever possible. However, we recognize tha
t most interaction (and probably
Global Teams and Social Capital


23

the most typical of the interactions) will not occur during these face
-
to
-
face meetings. Every six
months, team members will be asked to keep a five
-
day log of interaction related to the team,
including copies of all email

and other correspondence and a record of phone calls and meetings.
During interviews, team members will be asked to confirm whether these logs reflect “typical”
activity.

Data Analysis.
Data will be used to develop a picture of each team’s investment in

and use of
social capital as it progresses through its task over time. Consistent with other multimethod
studies, the different types of data will illuminate different aspects of the picture, and will be
used to triangulate conclusions about the team
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Maznevski & Chudoba,
forthcoming)
. Team
pictures will be compared with each other within and across organizations
and settings, and patterns in social capital investment and use will be identified.

One of the key methods of data analysis we will rely on is social network methodology
(Borgatti et al., 1992; Borgatti et al., 1998; Burt, 1992; Krackhardt, 1988)
. This technique
assesses the configuration of relationships among nodes in a network, and generates summary
data about each

node and about the network as a whole. Using network methodologies we will
be able to compare the various types of networks within a single team to assess the degree of
overlap. For example, we will be able to evaluate to what extent a team’s informatio
n and trust
networks overlap with each other. We will also be able to compare network configurations
across teams, addressing, for example, how the relationship between trust and information
networks for the effective teams differs from the relationship b
etween trust and information
networks for the ineffective teams. We will also be able to collapse the team’s network into one
node in a larger organizational network using data from team members about their external
contacts, and we will conduct the same
types of comparisons within and between teams in their
Global Teams and Social Capital


24

larger external networks. Although social network methodology has been used in many different
contexts, it is only through recent advances in software and hardware that it is capable of such
multiple
comparisons simultaneously. This application will therefore contribute to the practice
of this analysis technique.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the literature by advancing understanding about global teams and about
social capital. The study of gl
obal teams is faced with complexities that cannot be managed by
unidimensional approaches to theory. At the same time, social capital theory must be applied in
a complex, longitudinal context in order to resolve some of its major questions. Apart from it
s
important role in management theory, the social capital perspective has strong potential to
provide valuable insights for practicing managers. But without more clear specification and
contextualization, it becomes another set of buzzwords with little me
aning. We hope eventually
to be able to provide important advice to top managers of multinational enterprises as they try to
juggle the complex mix of dimensions characterizing their global teams.


Global Teams and Social Capital


25


References


Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strate
gies for team survival in an organization.
Academy
of Management Journal, 33
(2), 334
-
368.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and
performance in new
-
product teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 37
(4), 634
-
6
70.

Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1996). Innovation in top management teams.
Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81
(6), 680
-
693.

Athanassiou, N. A., & Nigh, D. (1999). The impact of U.S. company internationalization on top
management team advice networks: A t
acit knowledge perspective.
Strategic
Management Journal, 20
(1), 83
-
92.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.
Journal of Management,
17
(1), 99
-
120.

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (1992).
UCINET IV Vesion
1.0
. Columbia, SC:
Analytic Technologies.

Borgatti, S. P. (1998). A SOCNET discussion on the origins of the term Social Capital.
Connections, 21
(2), 37
-
46.

Borgatti, S. P., Jones, C., & Everett, M. G. (1998). Network measures of social capital.
Connections
, 21
(2), 27
-
36.

Boyacigiller, N. (1990). The role of expatriates in the management of interdependence,
complexity and risk in multinational corporations.
Journal of International Business
Studies, 21
(3), 357
-
381.

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). T
he art of continuous change: Linking complexity
theory and time
-
paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations.
Administrative
Science Quarterly, 42
(1), 1
-
34.

Burt, R. (1992).
Structural holes: The social structure of competition
. Cambridge, MA: Ha
rvard
University Press.

Canney Davison, S., & Ward, K. (1999).
Leading international teams
. Berkshire, England:
McGraw
-
Hill International.

Cohen, S. S., & Fields, G. (1999). Social capital and capital gains in Silicon Valley.
California
Management Review,
41
(2), 108
-
130.

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.

Global Teams and Social Capital


26

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capi
tal.
American Journal of
Sociology, 94
(Supplement), S95
-
S121.

Coleman, J. S. (1990).
Foundations of social theory
. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use:
Adaptive
Structuration Theory.
Organization Science, 5
(2), 121
-
147.

DiStefano, J. J., & Maznevski, M. L. (forthcoming). Creating Value with Diverse Teams in
Global Management.
Organizational Dynamics
.

Edstrom, A., & Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Transfer of managers as
a coordination and control
strategy in multinational organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 22
(2), 248
-
263.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research.
Academy of Management
Review, 14
(4), 532
-
550.

Gersick, C. J. G. (198
8). Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group
Development.
Academy of Management Journal, 31
(1), 9
-
41.

Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups.
Academy of
Management Journal, 32
(2), 274
-
309.

Gersi
ck, C. J. G. (1994). Pacing Strategic Change: The Case of a New Venture.
Academy of
Management Journal, 37
(1), 9
-
37.

Giddens, A. (1984).
The constitution of society
. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Jackson, S. E. (1991). Team composition in organizational set
tings: Issues in managing an
increasingly diverse workforce. S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.),
Group
process and productivity

(pp. 138
-
173). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global vir
tual teams.
Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3
(4).

Krackhardt, D. (1988). Predicting with networks: Nonparametric multiple regression analysis of
dyadic data.
Social Networks, 10
, 359
-
381.

Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape
: Structure, cognition, and power in
organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35
, 342
-
369.

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships.
In R. Kramer, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.),
Trust in organizations:

Frontiers of theory and
research

. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital.
Connections, 22
(1), 28
-
51.

Global Teams and Social Capital


27

Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997).
Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations
with techno
logy
. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust.
Academy of Management Review, 20
, 709
-
734.

Maznevski, M. L. (1994). Understanding our differences: Performance in
decision
-
making
groups with diverse members.
Human Relations, 47
(5), 531
-
552.

Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (forthcoming). Bridging space over time: Global Virtual
Team Dynamics and Effectiveness.
Organization Science
.

Maznevski, M. L., DiStefano, J.
J., Gomez, C. B., Noorderhaven, N. G., & Wu, P. (1997). The
cultural orientations framework and international management research. Presented at
Academy of International Business Annual Meeting .

McGrath, J. E. (1984).
Groups: Interaction and performance
. E
nglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. (1996). Searching for common threads; Understanding the multiple
effects of diversity in organizational groups.
Academy of Management, 21
(2), 402
-
433.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). So
cial capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage.
Academy of Management Review, 23
(2), 242
-
266.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995).
The knowledge creating company
. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Polanyi, M. (1962).
Personal knowledge

(2nd ed.)
. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Polanyi, M. (1966).
The tacit dimension
. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.

Putnam, R. D. (1993).
Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy
. Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Pr
ess.

Roth, K., Schweiger, D., & Morrison, A. (1991). Global strategy implementation at the business
unit level; Operational capabilities and administrative mechanisms.
Journal of
International Business Studies, 22
(3), 369
-
402.

Spender, J.
-
C. (1996). Making

knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm.
Strategic
Management Journal, 17
(S2), 45
-
62.

Watson, W. E., & Kumar, K. M. L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity's impact on interaction process
and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups
.
Academy of
Management Journal, 36
(3), 590
-
602.

Global Teams and Social Capital


28

Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators
of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy
behavior.
Academy of Man
agement Review, 23
, 513
-
530.

Whitener, E. M., Maznevski, M. L., Hua, W., Saebo, S., & Ekelund, B. (2000). Testing the
Cultural Boundaries of a Model of Trust: Subordinate
-
Manager Relationships in China,
Norway and the United States. Working Paper.



Figure 1.

Team Network Embedded in Organizational Network

A

F

G

B

C

D

E

K

L

g
1

c

k

f

g
2

e

MNC network
with business
units as nodes

Team network with
individuals from
business units as
nodes




Team

Organization

Team
Resources

Combining
Resources to
Make Decisions

MNC
Resources

External
Resources

Implement
Team
Decision

Organization
Performance

Implement
Team
Decision

Team’s
Social Capital

Figure 2:

Team’s Use of Social Capital


31


Appendix 3: Timeline with Methods Blocks

Individual Level Variables Assessed Once

(assumption that they won’t change in unpredictable ways enough to affect the study)


1.

Demographics:


1.1.

Business and international business experience

1.1.1.

Business experience


years in business

1.1.2.

International experience


working weeks outside home country in last year

1.1.3.

International experience


working weeks outside home country in past five years

1.1.4.

International experience


number of years in business outside home country


1.2.

Functional experience
and international functional experience

1.2.1.

During your business career, what proportion of the time have you spent in each of the
functional areas listed below, and…

1.2.2.

…what proportion of your time in each of these functional areas did you have substantial
inte
rnational business responsibility


1.3.

Geographic experience

1.3.1.

Personal direct business experience in geographic regions indicated, scale of low
experience to high experience


1.4.

Personal information

1.4.1.

Tenure in present company

1.4.2.

Present position

1.4.3.

Tenure in present posi
tion

1.4.4.

Past positions you consider especially formative

1.4.5.

Gender

1.4.6.

Age in 9 categories

1.4.7.

Education level

1.4.8.

Language fluency (list mother tongue, other languages can conduct business in, other
languages at conversational level)


1.5.

Cultural information: The following q
uestions concern your experience in different countries
around the world before you embarked on a career. If more than one country applies as an
answer in some cases, please write in all the countries’ names. In which country…

1.5.1.

… were you born?

1.5.2.

… were you

were raised until school age?

1.5.3.

… did you attend primary school?

1.5.4.

… did you attend high school?

1.5.5.

… did you attend college or university?

1.5.6.

In which other countries have you lived continuously for four months or longer?

1.5.7.

Cultural Identity:

The country in which a
person was born is the most common indicator of culture; however, it is
not accurate for everyone. There are many reasons for this. Some countries, such as Malaysia and
Canada, have more than one distinct culture. Some people did not grow up in the coun
try in which they
were born. Other people were born in a country very new to their parents, and were raised in their
parents’ culture. Still other people grew up in strong cultures


sometimes associated with religions


that
are more closely related to
family or other relationships than to geographical boundaries. Aboriginal
peoples of many parts of the world belong to cultures they consider distinct from their country’s culture.

Do you think of yourself as “belonging” to a particular culture? (Yes, No
)


32


Appendix 3: Timeline with Methods Blocks

If “yes,” what is that culture? (list culture).



33


Appendix 3: Timeline with Methods Blocks

2.

Cultural values

2.1.

CPQ5; wait to do this until the questionnaire is ready


3.

Preferences for interaction

3.1.

Preferences for leadership (Lena’s questionnaire)

3.2.

Conflict resolution styles

3.3.

Preferred group roles



Individual Level Variables Assessed Regularly

(they change, and the change is important)


4.

Attitudes towards team

4.1.

Commitment to the team

4.2.

Satisfaction with the team experience


5.

Peer assessment of individual characteristics

5.1.

Specialization (and degree of multi
-
specialization)

5.2.

Cosmopolitan
-
ness

5.3.

Types of contribution to team



Team Level Variables Assessed Once

(assumption that they won’t change in unpredictable ways enough to affect the study)

(check in interviews to see if they’ve changed substantially)


6.

Team m
andate or task

6.1.

Level of importance

6.2.

Level of complexity

6.3.

Level of uncertainty/ ambiguity

6.4.

Level of structure

6.5.

Timeline and importance of sticking to timeline


7.

Performance
criteria

7.1.

Criteria identified by final receiver of team’s decision outputs


7.2.

Criteria ident
ified by manager to whom team reports


7.3.

Criteria identified by key stakeholders

7.3.1.

upon whom team depends

7.3.2.

who depend upon team for inputs


7.4.

Criteria identified by team members


7.5.

Other incidental criteria identified by managers, e.g.,

7.5.1.

Organizational learning

7.5.2.

Dev
elopmental experience for members


8.

Organizational context

8.1.

Headquarters country


34


Appendix 3: Timeline with Methods Blocks

8.2.

Degree of internationalization

8.3.

Overall strategy

8.4.

Industry context

8.5.

Etc.


Team Level Variables Assessed Regularly

(they change, and the change is important)


9.

Internal dynamics

9.1.

Comm
unication

9.1.1.

Interview

9.1.2.

Survey

9.2.

Conflict resolution

9.2.1.

Interview

9.2.2.

Survey

9.3.

Constructive problem solving

9.3.1.

Interview

9.3.2.

Survey


10.

Internal network patterns

10.1.

Advice networks:

10.1.1.

Task
-
related Directional: Whom do you go to for task
-
related advice? Who comes to you
for task
-
relate
d advice?

10.1.2.

Task
-
related Quality: Who gives you the best task
-
related advice (top three people)?

10.1.3.

Other Directional: Whom do you go to for other types of advice? Who comes to you for
other advice? (note type of advice with code)

10.1.4.

Other Quality: Who gives you

the best advice (top three people)?


10.2.

Trust networks:

10.2.1.

Trust Directional: Whom do you trust to work well for the team? Whom do you trust in
general, at a personal level?

10.2.2.

Trust Quality: Whom do you trust the most to work well for the team (top three people
)?
Whom do you trust the most in general, at a personal level (top three people)?


10.3.

Information network

10.3.1.

Directional: Whom do you go to for task
-
related information? Who comes to you for
task
-
related information?

10.3.2.

Task
-
Related Quality: Who gives you the bes
t task
-
related information?

10.3.3.

Other Directional: Whom do you go to for other types of information? Who comes to
you for other types of information? (note type of information with code)

10.3.4.

Other Quality: Who gives you the best information (top three people)?


10.4.

D
ecision network

10.4.1.

Whom do you make decisions with? [Who do you go to when decisions need to be
made?]

10.4.2.

How are decisions made in the team? [getting at the combination of people necessary to
make a decision


individual or collective]


10.5.

Work relationship networ
k

10.5.1.

With whom do you enjoy working?


35


Appendix 3: Timeline with Methods Blocks


10.6.

Social relationship network

10.6.1.

How often do you interact sociallly (i.e., non
-
work hours) with each of the people on the
team?


11.

Internal team roles

11.1.

Who is counted on to get task
-
related jobs done?

11.2.

Who is counted on to get t
ask
-
related jobs done outside the team?

11.3.

Who is counted on to get jobs done other than those that pertain to the specific team
task? (e.g, social maintenance jobs)


12.

Network patterns external to team (each team member’s ego network)

12.1.

Include questions 10.1,
10.2, 10.3, 10.4, focusing on task

12.2.

Who are the three people from work that you socialize most extensively with

12.3.

Who are the three people you go to most for work advice (including those outside the
organization)

12.3.1.

Who are the three people whom you advise most
often on their work tasks?

12.4.

Who are the three people upon whom you depend most for career advice?

12.4.1.

Who are the three people whom you advise most frequently on career issues?


13.

Observed patterns of activity and communication

13.1.

Observed networks and dynamics duri
ng meetings and conference calls

13.2.

Activity overview reports, media, topics, actual members


14.

Performance


14.1.

According to team members, by interview, open
-
ended question, guided by criteria
identified in 7.2


14.2.

According to team members, by questionnaire

14.2.1.

Perceive
d quality of performance

14.2.2.

Team cohesion


14.3.

According to team’s senior manager, open
-
ended question, guided by criteria
identified in 7.3


14.4.

According to important external stakeholders, open
-
ended question, guided by
criteria identified in 7.1, 7.4


14.5.

Researcher
assessment according to criteria identified by

14.5.1.

Team

14.5.2.

Manager

14.5.3.

External stakeholders

14.5.4.

Researchers


36


Appendix 3: Timeline with Methods Blocks


Block A


What

On
-
line survey

Who

All team members

Why

Demographics, culture

When

Month 1 (project beginning), if possible before individual face
-
to
-
face inte
rviews
to save time in interview

How Long

25
-
30 minutes

Specific
Topics

Background information on team members: demographics, international
experience and culture, preferences for interaction

Variables

1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5

2.1

3.1, 3.2, 3.3


Block
B


What

Initial face
-
to
-
face interviews, short follow up survey (on
-
line)

Who

All team members

Why

Baseline of reported team internal networks, external networks, dynamics

When

Month 1 (project beginning)

How Long

60 minute interviews, 10 minute survey

Specific
Topics

Team’s mandate, performance criteria, and organizational context

Team members’ roles in team

k整w潲k猠潦 relati潮獨s灳pwithi渠nh攠e敡m

Team members’ networks of relationships outside the team

saria扬es

f湴敲vi敷㨠㔮ㄬ‵⸲e‵⸳
湯n⁦ir獴

i渠i湴敲vi敷F


㘮ㄬ‶⸲Ⱐ㘮㌬‶⸴ⰠP⸵


㜮㐠


㠮ㄬ‸⸲Ⱐ㠮㌬‸⸴ⰠP⸵.


扵t 湯n⁦潣畳 潦 i湴敲vi敷


㤮ㄮㄬ‹⸲⸱Ⱐ㤮㌮I


㄰⸱Ⱐ㄰⸲Ⱐ㄰⸳ⰠN〮㐬‱〮5


ㄱ⸱Ⱐㄱ⸲Ⱐㄱ⸳


ㄲ⸱Ⱐㄲ⸲Ⱐㄲ⸳ⰠN㈮O

卵牶敹W

㐮ㄬ‴⸲


㤮ㄮ㈬‹⸲⸲Ⱐ㤮㌮I




37


Appendix 3: Timeline with Methods Blocks


Block C


What

Face
-
to
-
face interviews

Who

Reporting manager, key external stakeholders

Why

Background information, task structure, performance criteria

When

Month 1 (project beginning), continuing to scan for changes

How Long

Up to 60 minutes, depending on interviewee’s
r潬e⁷it栠h敳灥pt⁴o⁴e慭

印散pfi挠
q潰i捳

Team mandate, team’s performance criteria, organizational context

saria扬es

㘮ㄬ‶⸲Ⱐ㘮㌬‶⸴ⰠP⸵

㜮ㄬ‷⸲Ⱐ㜮㌬‷⸵

㠮ㄬ‸⸲Ⱐ㠮㌬‸⸴ⰠP⸵

k潴攺 湯n 慬l⁩ntervi敷敥猠will 扥⁡獫敤⁡ll
煵敳ti潮猻 慬l⁶慲i慢a敳

will⁢攠 潶敲e搠批⁳潭攠
捯c扩湡ni潮o⁩ntervi敷敥s



Block D


What

Face
-
to
-
face interviews, document analysis

Who

Other external stakeholders, company and team documents

Why

Background information, task structure, performance criteria

When

Month 1 (p
roject beginning), continuing to scan for changes

How Long

Up to 60 minute interviews, depending on interviewee’s role with respect to team

印散pfi挠
q潰i捳

Organizational context, team’s use of external resources

saria扬es

㘮ㄬ‶⸲Ⱐ㘮㌬‶⸴ⰠP⸵

㜮ㄬ‷
⸲Ⱐ㜮㌬‷⸵

㠮ㄬ‸⸲Ⱐ㠮㌬‸⸴ⰠP⸵

k潴攺 湯n 慬l⁩ntervi敷敥猠will 扥⁡獫敤⁡ll
煵敳ti潮猻 慬l⁶慲i慢a敳⁷ill⁢攠 潶敲e搠批⁳潭攠
捯c扩湡ni潮o⁩ntervi敷敥s


Block E


What

5 day activity overview

Who

All team members, reporting manager if possible

Why

Ongoing team dynamics, patterns of communication, media choice

When

5 day workweek selected by members as “typical”

䵯湴栠㌬⁍潮oh‹Ⱐ⁍潮o栠ㄵ

e潷⁌潮

㄰i湵n敳⁰敲⁤慹
獰s敡搠t桲潵o桯ht⁤慹F⁦潲‵ 捯湳e捵civ攠摡ys

印散pfi挠
q潰i捳

o散潲搠潦 t慳k
-

l慴敤敥ti湧猠s湤⁰桯湥⁣慬l猠E摵d慴i潮Ⱐ潴h敲s⁩湶潬v敤e

k整w潲k⁡湤⁣潮o敮ef⁥ 慩lI⁦慸Ⱐ慮搠潴h敲⁣潲r敳灯湤敮ne

saria扬es

ㄳ⸲


38


Appendix 3: Timeline with Methods Blocks



Block F


What

Follow
-
up interviews, short follow
-
up survey (on
-
line)

Who

All team members

Why

Team internal networks
, external networks, dynamics

When

Month 6, Month 12, Month 18

Phone, or, if possible and convenient, in person.

How Long

30
-
45 minute interview, 10 minute survey

Specific
Topics

Changes in mandate and organization since last interview

Team members’ rol
e猠sn⁴eam

k整w潲k猠潦 relati潮獨s灳pwithi渠nh攠e敡m

Team members’ networks of relationships outside the team

qe慭⁰敲f潲m慮ae

k潴攺 周楳⁩猠敳s敮eially⁴he⁳ m攠e整fⁱ略獴i潮o⁡ ⁂l潣o⁂⸠⁔桥hint敲vi敷⁷ill
move more quickly because of the interviewee’
猠灲敶i潵猠o硰敲i敮e攠睩t栠h桥h
questions and the researchers’ knowledge of the team.

saria扬es

f湴敲vi敷㨠㔮ㄬ‵⸲e‵⸳


㘮ㄬ‶⸲Ⱐ㘮㌬‶⸴ⰠP⸵
捨cng敳⁳ 湣攠ea獴 int敲vi敷F


㜮㐠T捨慮a敳⁳i湣na獴 int敲vi敷e


㤮ㄮㄬ‹⸲⸱Ⱐ㤮㌮I


㄰⸱Ⱐ㄰⸲Ⱐ㄰⸳ⰠN〮
㐬‱〮5


ㄱ⸱Ⱐㄱ⸲Ⱐㄱ⸳


ㄲ⸱Ⱐㄲ⸲Ⱐㄲ⸳ⰠN㈮O


ㄴ⸱

卵牶敹W

㐮ㄬ‴⸲


㤮ㄬ‹⸲Ⱐ㤮P


ㄴ⸲




39


Appendix 3: Timeline with Methods Blocks


Block G


What

Follow
-
up interviews

Who

Reporting manager, important external stakeholders

Why

Changes in background information, task structure, performan
ce criteria

When

Month 6, Month 12, Month 18

Phone, or, if possible and convenient, in person

How Long

15
-
30 minute interviews

Specific
Topics

Changes in team mandate, performance criteria, and organizational context since
last interview.

Team performa
nce.

Variables

6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5

7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.5

14.3, 14.4

Note: not all interviewees will be asked all questions; all
variables will be covered by some combination of
interviewees

Only assess changes in these variables since last
interview.



Block H


What

Observation of meetings, conference calls.

Who

Team

Why

Validation and triangulation on networks and dynamics

When

Ongoing, whenever significant meetings are held

How Long

Concurrent with meetings already scheduled.

Specific
Topics

Commu
nication patterns, decision
-
making processes, relationship building and
use.

Variables

13.1

14.5






40


Appendix 3: Timeline with Methods Blocks







Initial interviews
with reporting
manager
, external
stakeholders,
prefer face
-
to
-
face

Interview others,
analyze
documents on
background data,
context.

Follow up
interview with
reporting
manager, external
stakeholders;
phone is fine.**

Follow up
interview with
reporting
manager, exter
nal
stakeholders;
phone is fine**

Follow up
interview with
reporting
manager, external
stakeholders;
phone is fine**








Ongoing
contact with
team regarding
progress and
major
developments.









Observation of
face
-
to
-
face
meetings with
whole group,
conference

calls, other
significant
events.






Incorporation
of new
members into
research,
debriefing of
members who
leave (if
possible).



Month 1

Month 1

Month 9*

Month 12

Month 15*

Month 18

Month 3*

Month 6

* Timing
approximate.

Time in months from start of project.

** Some of these interviews can take place over
phone, but each perso
n should be interviewed in
person at least once in the follow up phases.

Block C

Block G












Block D

Block G

Block G

Block F

Block H

Initial survey of
individual team
members

Initial interviews
with individual
tea
m members,
prefer face
-
to
-
face

Follow up
interview with
individual team
members,
some phone is
fine.**

Follow up
interview with
individual team
members,
some phone is
fine.**

5 day activity
overview

5 day activity
overview

5 day activity
overview

Block E

Block B

Block A

Block E

Block F

Block E

Block F

Follow up
interview with
individual team
members,
some phone is
fine.**