07 - Kankanhalli ConflictPerformanceGlobal 2006

Conflict and Performance in Global Virtual Teams
Author(s): Atreyi Kankanhalli, Bernard C. Y. Tan and Kwok-Kee Wei

Source: Journal of Management Information Systems , Winter, 2006/2007, Vol. 23, No.
3 (Winter, 2006/2007), pp. 237-274
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40398861
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40398861?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Management Information Systems
This content downloaded from

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Conflict and Performance in
Global Virtual Teams
ATREYI KANKANHALLI, BERNARD C.Y. TAN, AND

KWOK-KEEWEI
Atreyi Kankanhalli is Assistant Professor of Information Systems at the Natio

University of Singapore (NUS). She received her Ph.D. from NUS, M.S. in Electri
Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and B.Tech, from the Indian
stitute of Technology Delhi. Her research interests include knowledge manageme
IT-enabled organizational forms such as virtual teams and communities, and IT in
public sector. Her research has been published in journals such as MIS Quarterl
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Journal of the American Socie
for Information Science and Technology, International Journal of Human-Comp
Studies, European Journal of Information Systems, Communications of the AC
Decision Support Systems, and International Journal of Information Managemen
Bernard C.Y. Tan is Professor and Head of the Department of Information Syste
at the National University of Singapore (NUS). He received his Ph.D. in Informat
Systems from NUS. His research interests are in cross-cultural issues in informa
systems, virtual communities, knowledge management, Internet information priv
and software project management. Dr. Tan's past research has appeared in jour
such as ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, ACM Transactions
Information Systems, ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, Communication
the ACM, Decision Support Systems, European Journal of Information Systems,
Transactions on Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on Professional C
munication, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Information a
Management, Information Systems Research, International Journal of Human-C
puter Studies, Journal of Management Information Systems, Journal of the AIS, Jo
nal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Manageme
Science, and MIS Quarterly.
Kwok-Kee Wei is Head and Chair Professor in the Department of Information Sy

tems at the City University of Hong Kong. He obtained his Ph.D. from the Univer
of York and B.S. from Nanyang University. His research focuses on human-co
puter interaction, innovation adoption and management, electronic commerce, a
knowledge management. Dr. Wei has published widely in the information syst
field with articles appearing in Management Science, Journal of Management In
mation Systems, MIS Quarterly, Journal of the American Society for Information S
ence and Technology, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, ACM Transact
on Computer-Human Interaction, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cyb
netics, Decision Support Systems, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communic
tion, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, and European Journa
Information Systems.
Journal of Management Information Systems /Winter 2006-7, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 237-274.
© 2007 M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
0742-1222 / 2007 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/MIS0742- 1222230309

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
238 KANKANHALLI, TAN, AND WEI
ABSTRACT: Increasing globalization and advances in communication technology have

fuelled the emergence of global virtual teams (GVTs). There is much potential for
conflict in GVTs as members work across cultural, geographical, and time bound-
aries. This study examines the antecedents of GVT conflict and the circumstances
under which conflict affects team performance. An in-depth study of GVT conflict
episodes was carried out using interviews, observations, communication logs, and
documents. Based on findings from the teams under study interpreted in the light of
prior literature, propositions are developed about the antecedents and effects of GVT
conflict as stated. Within GVTs, cultural diversity is likely to contribute to both task
and relationship conflict while functional diversity may result in task conflict. Large
volumes of electronic communication and lack of immediacy of feedback in asyn-
chronous media can contribute to task conflict. Moreover, the relationship between
task conflict and team performance is likely to be contingent upon task complexity
and conflict resolution approach. The influence of relationship conflict on perfor-
mance may depend on task interdependence and conflict resolution approach. The
conflict resolution approach may in turn be determined by the nature of conflict attri-
bution. These propositions have been synthesized into a model to guide future em-
pirical research and GVT practice.
Key words and PHRASES: communication technology, conflict resolution, con-

flict types, diversity, global virtual teams, task characteristics, team conflict, team
performance.
Increasing globalization and the opportunities presented by improving com-

munication technology have led to the emergence of virtual structures in many orga-
nizations. Virtual teams refer to geographically or organizationally dispersed people
who work together using communication and information technologies to accom-
plish organizational tasks [55]. As an extension of the concept of virtual teams, global
virtual teams (GVTs) refer to globally dispersed members working together under
such circumstances. Members of GVTs typically come from different continents or
countries, interact via various forms of communication technology, and rarely or never
see each other in person [18, 28].
GVTs offer several potential benefits to organizations. These include access to ex-
pertise, round-the-clock service to customers, fast response to global market demands,
and saving of travel costs. GVTs can reshape themselves in response to changes in
environmental conditions [56]. However, team diversity and space-time dispersion
in a GVT may pose both opportunities for [57], as well as challenges to, effective
teamwork [33, 55]. While team diversity is celebrated for stimulating creativity and
allowing a variety of skills to be brought to bear on problems at hand [34], it may also
reduce team cohesion and increase conflict [50].
Conflict in GVTs may be exacerbated by communication delays, time zone differ-
ences, and lack of face-to-face contact due to space-time dispersion [39]. These fac-
tors may hinder development of understanding and relationships among members of

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
CONFLICT AND PERFORMANCE IN GLOBAL VIRTUAL TEAMS 239
a GVT [17]. If poorly managed, conflict can lead to ineffective teamwork [40] an
other negative outcomes [3, 60]. The importance of conflict management in achiev
ing effective virtual team outcomes has been emphasized [63]. Thus, GVTs can ben
efit from a better understanding of factors that trigger conflict as well as the possib
effect of conflict on team performance. Knowledge of antecedents and effects o
GVT conflict can help design interventions to manage the causes and alleviate th
negative outcomes of conflict.
Conflict in GVTs has been gaining research interest in recent years. Conceptua
studies [10, 25] and empirical studies [43, 44], including studies of student teams
[49], have examined some of the antecedents to conflict and the relationship betwe
conflict management approach and GVT performance. Particularly, the influence
certain technology and team elements on GVT conflict has been investigated [44
However, the third essential element of GVTs, task characteristics, has not been ex
plored in relation to GVT conflict and its outcomes (although there is evidence of i
influence in traditional team conflict [29]). Therefore, there is a lack of research in
vestigating these essential elements of GVTs in totality, in relation to conflict and
effect on team performance.
Based on the above motivation, this exploratory case study examines the influenc
of technology, task, and team characteristics of GVT on conflict and outcomes, throu
analysis of conflict episodes. In-depth analysis of conflict episodes focusing on th
key team, task, and technology elements; conflict processes; and outcomes shoul
yield insights beyond prior studies using team-level surveys. Questions addressed
this study are: How are various forms of team diversity in GVTs linked to conflict
What is the role of technology in relation to conflict in a GVT? How might task
characteristics influence conflict processes and outcomes in a GVT? The answers t
these questions are used to build an integrative model of conflict and performance
GVTs, which can guide future empirical research efforts and provide practical sug
gestions on GVT conflict management.
Conceptual Background
Because our study aims to investigate the influence of team, technology, an

task elements on conflict and resultant team performance, we review the relevan
previous literature on these topics as a background for our study. Team performan
typically focuses on task-related outcomes [53]. Task-related outcomes are the char
acteristics of the outcomes such as task quality and effectiveness. Therefore, our a
sessment of performance is in terms of task quality.
Conflict Types
Conflict is defined as disagreement, both manifest and latent, among team membe
and implies incompatible goals or interests [59]. Conflict in teams can be broadly
categorized into two main types - relationship and task [52]. Relationship conflic

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
(also known as affective conflict) has affective components such as tension and fric-
tion [31]. It involves personal issues such as mutual dislike, personality clashes, and
annoyance among team members. Some studies have reported that relationship con-
flict is detrimental to team performance [30] while others are less conclusive [29].
Task conflict reflects differences in viewpoints pertaining to team tasks. It may
coincide with animated discussion and personal excitement but is usually devoid of
the intense negative emotions commonly associated with relationship conflict [31 ]. It
includes differences about how task accomplishment should proceed and issues of
duty and resource delegation, such as who should do what and how much responsi-
bility each person should get. Several studies have reported that moderate levels of
task conflict are beneficial to team performance [30, 60].
Conflict Attribution and Resolution
Attribution theory explains how teams resolve misunderstandings and conflict [14].
When conflict arises, team members try to assess the cause of the problem [4]. Such
attributions may be personal or situational in nature, and may be constructive or non-
constructive for continued communication. Personal attribution blames the problem
on the characteristics or behavior of individuals [27], whereas situational attribution
faults the situation or context. An attribution is constructive if it facilitates adaptation
and nonconstructive otherwise. Previous studies have suggested that situational attri-
bution tends to be more constructive for further communication than personal attribu-
tion, because it modifies the rules that guide communication rather than allowing these
rules to break down [4]. Subsequently, researchers have identified a third type of attri-
bution, categorical attribution, as that based on the characteristics of social categories
instead of individuals [37]. Categorical attribution may be particularly relevant for
GVT, where social category diversity is salient (see the Team Projects section).
Attribution can pave the way for conflict resolution [59]. There are three common
conflict resolution approaches: integrative (solving the problem through collabora-
tion), distributive (solving the problem through assertion), and avoidance (ignoring
the problem) [65]. The integrative approach identifies and achieves outcomes that are
satisfactory to all team members. The distributive approach yields outcomes that fa-
vor some team members but not others. The avoidance approach occurs when team
members fail to confront the conflict and achieve no outcomes.
For traditional teams, the integrative approach appears to be most suitable for re-
solving strategic problems, whereas the distributive approach appears to be least suit-
able [58]. However, in GVTs comprising students, the integrative and distributive
approaches appeared to facilitate team performance, whereas the avoidance approach
seemed to hinder team performance [43]. While some studies involving traditional
software development teams [3, 60] suggest that conflict resolution approach medi-
ates the relationship between conflict and team performance, others [64] suggest that
conflict resolution approach plays a moderating role in the relationship. The differ-
ences in results suggest a need to look deeper into the processes of GVT conflict [39].

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
CONFLICT AND PERFORMANCE IN GLOBAL VIRTUAL TEAMS 24 1
Team Diversity
In the past, studies on employee selection and socialization [11] promoted similarit
in values and demographics as the basis for maintaining effective work environments
This has changed subsequently with researchers [23, 75] calling for more team dive
sity to facilitate team performance. However, empirical research on the effects o
team diversity has produced mixed results. Consequently, more complex conceptual
zations of team diversity have been proposed.
Two important types of team diversity are functional (arising from differences i
educational background, experience, and expertise among team members) and socia
category (arising from differences in race, culture, gender, and age among team mem
bers) [51]. In traditional teams, functional diversity has been heralded for increasin
innovation, developing clearer strategies, and responding faster to changes [7]. At t
same time, differences in opinions and perspectives engendered by functional dive
sity have been found to increase task conflict [32, 51]. In GVTs comprising student
cognitive conflict among team members with different educational background h
been observed [73]. However, it is not clear how such conflict may affect GVT per
formance.
An important aspect of social category diversity in GVT is cultural diversity. In

traditional teams, social category diversity has been found to cause relationship con
flict [32, 51]. But the evidence about whether cultural diversity in GVT increases
decreases conflict has been mixed, with some studies suggesting increases [18] an
other studies being inconclusive [44]. These results highlight the need to examin
cultural diversity more deeply [39].
Cultural diversity includes national and linguistic differences among members a
well as differences along broader cultural dimensions [26]. Given that GVT member
bring their disparate cultural values to the team, it is important to know how cultura
dimensions may affect conflict and performance in GVT. Five bipolar dimensions o
culture have been identified - power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism
masculinity, and long-term orientation [26]. Power distance is the extent to which
people expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. Uncertainty avoidan
refers to the degree that people feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situatio
Individualism implies belief in the primary importance of the individual as oppos
to the group. Masculinity refers to cultures in which social gender roles are distin
Long-term orientation is the degree to which people's efforts are focused toward t
future rather than the present.
Of the five dimensions, individualism has been identified as particularly relevant
the context of studying teams [49, 66]. Prior research indicates that it influences c
operative behavior of individuals in a group and is likely to be the most importan
distinguishing feature of culture [71]. People from an individualistic culture tend
value personal time and the freedom to adopt personal approaches to their work.
contrast, people from a collectivistic culture tend to value team identity and the pres
ence of team standards for carrying out their work [26]. Prior research has indicat

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
the influence of individualism orientation on conflict management style [49] but not
as an antecedent to conflict.
Communication Technology
Group support systems literature [42, 62] has contributed to our understanding of the
effect of technology on team conflict. These systems offer some capabilities similar
to communication technology available to GVTs, particularly, group support for com-
munication (from features such as simultaneous input and public group display), and
process structuring (from features such as agenda setting, agenda enforcement, and
record of group interaction) [77].
Providing communication support through group support systems can help teams
to generate more task conflict and resolve the conflict more effectively [62]. Provid-
ing process structuring support can reduce both task conflict and relationship conflict
[42]. These findings suggest that conflict in computer-assisted teams may increase or
decrease depending on the type of support. Although these studies have helped to
elucidate the effects of communication technology on team conflict, they have been
conducted in experimental settings and with artificial tasks. It is not clear whether
these results would apply to GVTs performing real tasks in field settings [63].
Researchers have discussed the role of technology in creating conflict in virtual
teams. Virtual teams that relied more heavily on technology were found to experience
more task conflict, and the conflict seemed to be more detrimental for such teams
than traditional teams [44]. Five types of communication problems are found to con-
tribute to misunderstandings in virtual teams: failure to communicate contextual in-
formation; failure to communicate information evenly; differences in salience of
information to individuals; differences in speed of access to information, and inter-
pretation of the meaning of silence [14]. The causes of the problems cited were the
geographic dispersion of team members, the information load, and the slow rate and
feedback lag of communication media. Information overload is a consequence of
large volume of communication, which has increased in the context of electronic
communication [16].
Immediacy of feedback is the extent the medium enables message recipients to give
rapid feedback on the information they receive [15]. The lack of immediacy of feed-
back in asynchronous communication can cause problems in development of mutual
knowledge in distributed teams [14]. Given the reliance of GVT on information and
communications technology (ICT), it is important to investigate its effects on conflict
in GVT.
Task Characteristics
Two characteristics of tasks that have been highlighted in the context of traditional
team conflict and performance are task interdependence and task routineness. Task
interdependence refers to the extent to which team members need to rely on each

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
other to accomplish their task [72]. Prior studies indicate that the effect of relat
ship conflict on team performance may depend on task interdependence [29].
effect may be stronger when there is greater task interdependence. In other wor
dislike and friction may be more detrimental to team performance when team m
bers are required to depend more on each other.
Task routineness refers to the degree of structuredness and programmability of t
task [72]. Routineness has been inversely related to task complexity, that is, the
gree of ambiguity in paths toward and solutions to the task [9]. In relation to confli
phenomena, the effect of task conflict on team performance has been found to dep
on task routineness [29]. Task conflict may be negatively related to team perform
for routine tasks but positively related to team performance for nonroutine tasks [
Scope of This Study
Table 1 summarizes the conflict literature by highlighting the relationships betw

key concepts for traditional teams and GVTs. Figure 1 indicates the relationsh
between key concepts in the context of GVT conflict. From the summary, it is c
that several conceptual gaps exist in our understanding of conflict in GVTs. Firs
some important relationships among concepts (e.g., the moderating effects of ta
characteristics on the relationship between conflict and team performance) have
been tested for GVTs. Second, several relationships among concepts that hold
traditional teams have ambiguous results for GVTs (e.g., the relationship betw
cultural diversity and conflict). Third, some relationships among concepts for tr
tional teams appear to be contradicted for GVTs (e.g., the effect of distributive c
flict resolution approach on team performance). As an effort toward bridging t
conceptual gaps, the goal of this study is to build an integrative model of conflict a
performance in GVTs. Insights from our case study would be interpreted in ligh
the previous literature to generate the propositions for the model.
Methodology
We used an exploratory case study as the basis for our research design [7
Exploratory case studies are ideal for analyzing what is common or different ac
cases that share some key criteria (differences in team, task, and technology cha
teristics for our study). They are appropriate for preliminary studies such as our
which the researcher has little control over the key variables and wants to obta
richer understanding of the phenomenon.
Team Background
The three GVTs examined in this study were made up of master's-level students f
three universities (in North America, Europe, and Asia) who participated in a co

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
244
co
I a ¡S
I I Jl i III
£ ^ £
^ ^^ ¿57K
¿5 S ^s ?©£ -©CD
£,>>>•
CD
o ^ I4 ^^ * ¿5 7
•5 § 2 -| .ss .ss ^ 8. 8- ?
1 1 1-1 f 11 ^ filili
! I ila? JS §ï§ï§ï
I 1 titilli l|||l|
« ÍÍí|l H i t "s * i
î ¿§31311211 1 llalli
PJ •••••• • •••
fi "S 8 o
| f 1| î !¡| ¡ || ¡ i |
i f jl | if î Lff 1 1 1
I
i Ilf-Lïïfslîïi lïiïlî
| .IcÍRK-ialts.is-íg.aõSs aliili
2
S
§
t ilHl 1111 IliJ il MUSI
w • • ••••• •••
u
I
ï p
O
î o 1 ^: cojo e| Uli +-P©£
o ^: cojo +-P©£
I ^1 ^ Of
C CcW C
£j 9- '45 ïl« CcW
I
f 1 cl 151 Hiss
&^ |o 8Í0 g^ |£
i I I li Iti lili!

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
TEAM DIVERSITY CONFLICT TYPE

• Functional diversity
• Cultural diversity
TbCHINULUUY '
• Reliance on
technology rwARAr
• Integrative
• Distributive
• Avoidance
I
- - - "► Relationships not yet studied I _

ATTRIBUTION
figure 1. Relationships Between Key Concepts in the Context of GVT Conflict
on Global Project Coordination. Two GVTs had members from all three universitie
while the remaining GVT had members from two universities.
As an integral part of the course, each student participated as a member of a GVT
and each GVT completed a global industry-sponsored project. Relative to prior stud
ies with student GVTs, the three GVTs examined in this study were comparatively
more like organizational GVTs. Team members had at least two years of work expe
rience. The tasks (team projects) were formulated, monitored, and assessed by org
nizational sponsors. These projects were also longer lasting (around five months)
than typical student team projects. Further, projects were assigned to team member
by organizational sponsors and course faculty, who matched the skill profiles of tea
members to project requirements. The teams communicated considerably throug
teleconferencing, a medium commonly used in organizational GVTs that has not
been studied adequately in previous student GVTs. At the end of the course, each
GVT had to present their results to organizational sponsors and course faculty, wh
then awarded them a grade based on the quality of work done for their global project
The GVTs met face-to-face once at the beginning and once toward the end of th
five-month course. They attended weekly videoconferencing lectures conducted by
course faculty from the three universities. Throughout their projects, they communi
cated and collaborated using a variety of communication technology such as telecon
ferencing, e-mail, Web discussion boards, chat, and private community Web space
Members of the three GVTs were nationals of 1 1 countries spanning four continen
(North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa). With these differences in cultural back
ground and heavy reliance on communication technology, these teams clearly satis
fied the key characteristics of GVTs. The demographic characteristics of the thre
GVTs are shown in Table 2.

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
246
O) O) O)
o ¡- w |- (o j- w
*r3 ®(/}<D Q)(/50 0)0)
rrt O Q) O G) CD O 0} CD
o ç ç c c ç c ce
3 o> w .9 o> "co .2 o) w
pq 0 D W CD-QC/) 0X3
I^»CMCJ LOCOt- tJ-cO
S a S
.? 9> a a e a co 2
cS co â^Ç ^ cr o ^cr 2^£ §

¿ üliiSíOCODÜIWDÜILÍCOF
1-t-CMi-^-CMi-i-CO^-^CMi-CMt-
•g Nr2ço
•-
r§"ço rçc
Od'co Od'ü) Ow
¡-1 N ZUJ< ZLJJ< Z<
LO^CvJ tJ- CO CM ^ CO
1^ i- O
cq hs. h*.
¿T» ö cm ö o ö m
'S il co li cm n ^
> | ? I? |°
5 § g, S g, § g>
o < o < o <
c/5
o ^ CÖ _ÇD C0 ^) C0 JÇD
e E co E co E co
u ^ E Ä E Ä E
^ -*■ h- ^- io co -*■
C/3
.Sá
1/3
¡
S co
Si ||
î
¿s
Í E E
CN
ed
«i
H < Cu ü

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
Team Projects
Team A was assigned a global project sponsored by an international consulting co

pany. The goal of the project was to collect information about risk assessment a
management procedures in a variety of industries. The sponsor company prov
members of Team A with a predesigned risk assessment questionnaire. Members
Team A used this questionnaire to gather information from global businesses thro
interviews with top executives. The team manager analyzed the data collected
prepared the final report. Because members of Team A could carry out their int
views independently of each other, the team task was deemed low in task interde
dence. Moreover, because the team did not have to perform the more complex subta
of the project, such as generating interview questions and preparing the report,
team task was considered low in task complexity (see Table 3).
Team B undertook a global project sponsored by an international telecommunic
tions company. The goal of this project was to understand the global market for
bile applications from an Internet service provider (ISP) perspective. Members
Team B were first required to generate applications and interview questions. T
then interviewed top executives from ISPs in three continents to identify signifi
and emerging mobile applications, the charging mechanisms used, and the under
ing technology. Subsequently, they needed to analyze the interview data and prep
their report. Given that members of Team B had to exchange information freque
during all subtasks except contacting and interviewing ISPs, the team task was c
sidered high in task interdependence. Because members of Team B had to perfor
complex subtasks such as generating interview questions and applications as well
analyzing data and preparing the report with minimal assistance from the sponsor a
manager, the team task was deemed high in task complexity (see Table 3).
Team C worked on a global project sponsored by an international computer com
pany. The objective of this project was to reengineer the financial analyst organ
tion within the sponsor company to attain a more effective structure. Members
Team C had to prepare their own interview questions, interview finance executi
(contacts provided by the sponsor) to elicit ideas on how to improve financial ana
structure, and prepare a report of solutions. Considering that members of Team C h
to exchange information frequently throughout the project except during the in
views, but the project involved fewer members (with fewer interactions) spread acr
fewer locations than other teams, the team task was deemed moderate in task inter
pendence. Because members of Team C were provided moderate assistance for
more complex subtasks by their sponsor (provided contacts but not interview q
tions) and manager (help with analysis but not with report writing), the team task
considered moderate in task complexity (see Table 3).
Technology Use
All three GVTs had the option to use e-mail, teleconferencing, Web discussion boa
and various Internet-based groupware technologies such as ICQ chat and e-circ

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
248
O ••=
■^ (0 m
og _ o> o- a- -3 . 2 o
.i 5sM!. ! _ s
! .l!|ilfs|li!f i If lifts
ïH II HI III ilflilllî
Ht-^ evi co ^ io cD^^ • •• • • ¿ E o
co m
> © E "o ^^ ±_
I isïlîl P zi i fi
I .ï|«|l* Unii lislf
IlIIIlii Jìlilf. . !t II
% ¡II iiiiiüüil! 1 . II1I-I .S E
| O¿q.E-2&.üSo.£üS£=g-5 S I I .S g E
Ht-^ cJ cõ ^ inço n52 i • • • ¿ E o
í o
C » I § ! S I O1 || <D I g
il C » ì li ! I Ili i If
II ! « II ì ìllifil
& lîIlPIIHI Hf jiliîlf

Ht-: evi co Ä .1
o
C/5
O
*- CD
1
i 1
w§8
E E
¿
E E -g
2 2 3
1 ¡li
! î î S
en
I I 1 î I

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
The Web discussion board was a bulletin board linked to the course Web site where
GVT members could post text messages. The messages could be viewed by anyone
because there was no password protection on the course Web site. Messages for each
team were structured into topics using discussion threads. E-circle is a private (pass-
word protected) community Web space that allowed GVTs to share document files,
hold discussions, plan team events, and maintain team calendars and task lists.
Team A relied mainly on e-mail for communication and e-circle for sharing docu-
ment files. They occasionally used the Web discussion board. Team B relied less on e-
mail for communication. They mainly used the Web discussion board to share
document files and regularly posted the minutes and agenda of their conference calls
there. They did not use e-circle or online chat. Team C relied heavily on e-mail for
communication. They supplemented conference calls with chat sessions. They used
the Web discussion board moderately. They rarely used e-circle to share document
files. All three GVTs made moderate use of conference calls (see Table 4).
The three GVTs in this study differed in terms of team diversity (see Table 2), task
characteristics (see Table 3), and communication technology used (see Table 4). These
factors are important elements that could potentially affect conflict and team perfor-
mance (see Table 1).
Data Collection
The data collection protocol (see Table 5) was developed based on guidelines sug-
gested by qualitative research literature [41]. This protocol provided a framework
for carrying out within-GVT and across-GVT analysis. Having a detailed case study
protocol for data collection and data analysis helped to increase reliability of re-
sults [76].
Data were collected over eight months. Throughout the five-month duration of the
course, data were collected via observations of face-to-face meetings and conference
calls, communication logs, and project documentation. Communication among mem-
bers of the GVTs via all communication technology, such as e-mails, e-circle logs,
chat sessions, and Web board discussion messages, was captured. Face-to-face meet-
ings and conference calls were recorded. All available project documentation was
archived. After the course, data were collected over a three-month period via inter-
views with members of the GVTs and course faculty and questionnaires completed
by members of the GVTs (see the Appendix for interview outline and questionnaire
items).
Measures and Data Analysis
Gender diversity was measured using Blau's index of heterogeneity [5]. This index
has been used to measure diversity in categorical variables in previous studies such as
Pelled et al. [51]. The value of the index can vary from zero (indicating all team
members are the same on the attribute) to one (indicating all team members are differ-
ent). Blau's index was not used for measuring functional, national, and linguistic

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
Table 4. Technology Use by GVT
E-mails per student 437/1 1 = 39.7 248/9 = 27.6 374/7 = 53.4

Web discussion board
messages per student 19/11=1.7 94/9 = 1 0.4 54/7 = 7.7
Chat sessions 1 0 5
E-circle (private commu
Web space) use High Nil Low
Teleconference calls 8 8 6
Table 5. Data Collection Protocol
Data source Details
Semistructured interviews • Interviews with team members and course

faculty (average length of interview was 60
minutes).
Observation of meetings • All face-to-face meetings, presentations, and
breaks throughout a four-day period.
Observation of conference calls • Team A: 8 meetings (average length was 60
minutes).
• Team B: 8 meetings (average length was 45
minutes).
• Team C: 6 meetings (average length was 60
minutes).
Communication logs • All communication among team members
(e-mail, chat sessions, Web discussion board
messages, and e-circle logs).
Questionnaires • Questionnaires completed by team members
(average time to complete questionnaire was
20 minutes).
Project documentation • Description of project.
• Personal information of team members.
• Lessons learned papers by team members.
diversity becau
than others (t
For example, f
closer to each
and American
such as Singap
measure throu
nant language.

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
individualism dimension, the concepts of subgroups and fault lines [19, 36] were
found to be more useful to assess the effect of diversity on conflict and other tea
outcomes. Relatively equal size and differing subgroups lead to stronger fault line
along which conflict may occur. Age diversity was measured using coefficient o
variation (standard deviation of ages divided by mean of ages).
Task characteristics were evaluated based on project task descriptions (see Table 3
Team-level assessment of degree of task conflict, relationship conflict, and domina
type of conflict resolution was done using previously validated questionnaire item
from Jehn [30] and Miranda and Bostrom [42] (see the Appendix). The responses to
questionnaires were averaged across the team to obtain the levels of conflict param
eters. Team performance was assessed based on the objective grade awarded to th
team. Conflict episodes were identified based on interview responses, lessons learne
papers, and communication logs. Each conflict episode was analyzed for type, caus
attribution, and resolution. The way in which the different constructs were measured
or coded is summarized in Table 6. Table 7 summarizes the reliability measures of t
team-level questionnaire items for task conflict, relationship conflict, and conflic
attribution for the three GVTs. All reliability values are above the acceptable thresh
old of 0.7 [46].
Data analysis was carried out at two levels: detailed analysis of conflict episode
and aggregate (team-level) analysis of conflict parameters. Doing data analysis at
both levels allowed for cross-level triangulation of findings. There were five majo
steps in the data analysis process. First, all data sources for each GVT were prepar
and assembled. These activities included transcribing interviews and conference cal
printing communication logs (for all communication technologies), and compilin
questionnaire results and project documentation.
Second, the data for each GVT was recorded on a case summary sheet where con
flict episodes could be identified. To construct the overall sequence of events for ea
GVT, all the evidence from different data sources was sorted in chronological orde
The interview transcripts followed by the lessons learned papers were used as pri-
mary sources to identify conflict episodes. This is because members themselves ide
tified conflict episodes, their causes, and resolution in these data sources. Subsequently
communication logs of all media used by the team were also analyzed to determin
additional conflict episodes and corroborate those obtained from the primary sourc
All evidence was examined in detail by two independent researchers to identify th
sources of conflict, type of conflict, parties involved in the conflict, and how th
conflict was attributed and resolved. The perspectives of different team membe
were considered. Apart from conflict episodes, a timeline of key events in each GV
was created.
Third, within-GVT analysis of conflict episodes was carried out for each GVT. The
goal was to identify the relationships between conflict antecedents, such as team diver-
sity and technology characteristics, and conflict type (task conflict or relationship con-
flict) as well as the relationships between conflict attribution (personal, situational, or
categorical) and conflict resolution approaches (integrative, distributive, or avoidance).
The data for each GVT was also compared with interview transcripts and questionnaire

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
Table 6. Construct Measurement
Category/construct
Team diversity Based on team composition Team member

• Age • Coefficient of variation for demographic and
age in years educational
• Cultural • Fault lines based on: characteristics
• Cultural dimension • Individualism
• Language • Dominant language(s)
• National • Major country(ies)
• Functional • Engineering/science
versus business
• Gender • Blau's index [5] for male/female
Task Coded based on description of
characteristics construct Team project
• Task complexity • [9] descriptions
• Task interdependence • [72]
Conflict type (team level) [30] Questionnaire
• Task conflict answered by all team
• Relationship conflict members
Conflict resolution [42] Questionnaire
(team level) answered by all team
• Integrative members
• Distributive
• Avoidance
Team performance
• Task outcome Grade Course grade sheet
Mentioned in interviews and Interviews, lessons
lessons learned papers or learned papers,
coded based on description meeting observation
Conflict episode level of construct from and communication
• Conflict type • [30] logs, project
• Cause documentation
• Team diversity
• Age diversity
• Cultural (including • [26]
cultural dimension,
language and
national) diversity
• Functional diversity • [20]
• Gender diversity
• Communication • [14]
technology
• Volume of
communication
• Immediacy of
feedback
• Conflict attribution
• Personal • [4]
• Categorical
• Situational • [37]
• Conflict resolution • [42]
• Integrative
• Distributive
• Avoidance

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
Fable 7. Construct Reliabilities
Reliability
Construct
All teams
Task conflict 0.98
Relationship conflict 0.93
Integrative resolution 0.94
Distributive resolution 0.81
Avoidance resolution 0.71
Team A
Task conflict 0.92
Team B
Task conflict 0.95
TeamC
Task conflict 0.92
Avoidance resolution
responses to as
and predomina
Fourth, across-
the three GVT
conflict (task a
these relations
complexity) an
ance). The resu
Finally, all rel
were integrate
efforts and off
reliance on mu
over, the two
overall agreem
rater reliabilit
was greater th
ment were res

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
Team-Level Results
Team A
Team A consisted of 1 1 members from six different countries with three different
educational backgrounds, and was characterized by relatively high gender diversity

and low age diversity (see Table 2). This team displayed strong cultural fault lines
between members from North America (the United States and Canada), Europe (Swe-
den), and Asia (India and Singapore). The team also exhibited relatively weak func-
tional fault lines between engineering and science majors. For illustration, several
conflict episodes from Team A are described below, along with their type, cause,
attribution, and resolution.
In one conflict episode, team members differed in their assumptions on whether
their primary responsibility should be toward oneself or toward the team. Members
from more collectivistic cultures (Singapore and India) perceived that their team-
mates from more individualistic cultures (the United States and Canada) were not
cooperative enough. A Singaporean team member wrote, "As it turns out, Asian mem-
bers approach the project as a real team effort. But members from North America
were simply completing their own section and did not do much in helping others."
This incident was considered as an episode of task conflict caused by cultural diver-
sity. Because the conflict was blamed on the social category of members, conflict
attribution was categorical. Given that members from collectivistic cultures expressed
their concern about the lack of cooperation of members from individualist cultures,
with no corresponding adjustment in behavior from these members, the conflict reso-
lution approach was distributive.
In another episode, team members disagreed about a peer appraisal scheme sug-
gested by their manager. The manager proposed the scheme to let team members rate
each other in order to determine who should participate in the presentation to the
sponsor. Members from collectivistic cultures (India and Singapore) were not com-
fortable about rating their teammates, while members from individualistic cultures
(the United States and Canada) felt that the peer appraisal scheme was appropriate.
The opposing subgroups argued about the merits and demerits of the scheme, but
neither group changed their position. Eventually, the appraisal scheme was imple-
mented. This was considered as an episode of task conflict caused by cultural diver-
sity. Conflict attribution was categorical because subgroups blamed the cause on the
different categories to which members belonged. Conflict resolution approach was
distributive because one subgroup prevailed.
In yet another episode, there was mutual hostility between collectivistic members
from India and Singapore and their individualistic North American teammates. The
cause of conflict was differences in attitudes about separating personal life and pro-
fessional life. North American members preferred to keep their professional and per-
sonal lives separate, while Asian members felt that there was no problem in overlapping
the two. An Asian member, who knew a North American member professionally,
perceived that the relationship could also be personal. He discussed a personal matter

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
with the North American member, who became offended. The conflict escalated to
the point where the manager intervened to make the Asian member apologize. This
was considered as an episode of relationship conflict caused by cultural diversity.
Because an individual rather than a subgroup was blamed for the conflict, conflict
attribution was personal. Given that one party prevailed over the other, the conflict
resolution approach was distributive.
In Team A, technology characteristics affected task conflict. The large volume of
e-mail communication resulted in information overload among team members. Con-
sequently, contributions made by some team members were overlooked. For example,
a team member proposed a solution for a particular subtask by e-mail. Though some
teammates appreciated this suggestion, it was eventually forgotten. Concurrently,
another discussion generated a large number of e-mails. After four days, another
member sent an e-mail to the team suggesting the same solution, without reference to
the original suggestion. The member who made the original suggestion felt that his
views were not valued by his teammates, resulting in task conflict. However, he did
not blame any teammate but attributed the problem to information overload. This was
considered as an episode of task conflict caused by technology factors. Conflict attri-
bution was situational because the problem was blamed on the context. Conflict reso-
lution approach was avoidance because the conflict was ignored.
Altogether, 1 1 conflict episodes were identified and analyzed for Team A (see Table
8). Questionnaire responses and in-depth analysis suggested that the overall level of
relationship conflict was high and the level of task conflict was low (see Table 9).
Distributive conflict resolution approach was employed most frequently in Team A.
Among the three GVTs, Team A obtained a moderate project grade.
TeamB
Team B consisted of nine members from four different countries with three different
functional backgrounds, characterized by relatively higher gender diversity and low

age diversity (see Table 2). Moderate cultural fault lines appeared between members
from North America (United States), Europe (Sweden), and Asia (China and Hong
Kong), because there were relatively fewer members from collectivistic cultures than
in Team A. Weak functional fault lines also surfaced between engineering majors and
the lone science major. For illustration, several conflict episodes in Team B are de-
scribed below, along with their type, cause, attribution, and resolution.
General animosity between team members from different countries resulted in con-
flict. One conflict episode occurred when the team met face-to-face to present their
results to the sponsor company. A member noted, "A Swedish teammate complained
that he didn't like the American team members. He said that they did not appreciate
Swedish ways. He was quite upset about this but didn't make this known to the Ameri-
can team members." This incident was considered as an episode of relationship con-
flict caused by national diversity. Conflict attribution was categorical because the
problem was blamed on a social category. Conflict resolution approach was avoid-
ance because the concerns were not voiced to the offending party.

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
Table 8. Summary of Conflict Episodes
Number of epis
Conflict episodes Team A Team B TeamC

Episode type
- task conflict 6 4 8
- relationship conflict 5 4 2
Total episodes 11 8 10
Conflict antecedent
• Cultural diversity leading to
• Functional diversity leading to
• Age diversity leading to
• Gender diversity leading to
• Technology characteristics leading to
Conflict resolution
- integrative resolution 2 2 9
- distributive resolution 6 2 1
- avoidance resolution 3 4 0
Conflict attribution
• Personal attribution followed by
- avoidance resolution 1 1 0
• Categorical attribution followed by
- integrative resolution 0 12
- avoidance resolution 13 0
• Situational attribution followed by
- avoidance resolution
Another episod
to-face for the
with a Swedish
the Swedes tha
from both coun
ally resolved t

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
Table 9. Summary of Conflict Parameters
Conflict Parameter Team A TeamB TeamC
Level of task conflict Low Low High

(on a scale of 1 to 7) (2.0) (1 .8) (5.4)
Level of relationship conflict High Moderate Low
(on a scale of 1 to 7) (6.0) (3.0) (1 .5)
Dominant conflict resolution approach Distributive Avoidance Integrative
Level of team performance
considered as an epis
flict attribution was
other. Conflict resol
decided to focus on a
Team B relied less on
made maximal use of
post minutes and age
feedback when comm
flict in Team B. A te
the message did not
spond. The member w
sage last Friday. But I
disappeared. Sorry fo
episode of task confl
was situational becau
circumstances. Confli
resolved without any
Altogether, eight co
Table 8). Questionnai
level of relationship
Table 9). Avoidance c
B. A team member n
when there were, peo
wished that the prob
obtained the lowest p
TeamC
Team C was made up of seven members from five different countries with two differ-
ent functional backgrounds, with relatively high gender and moderate age diversity
(see Table 2). Moderate cultural fault lines appeared between members from indi-
vidualistic cultures (France) and members from collectivistic cultures (Singapore,
Indonesia, and China). Relatively stronger functional fault lines surfaced between

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
engineering majors and business majors. For illustration, several conflict episodes in
Team C are described below, along with their type, cause, attribution, and resolution.
Linguistic diversity, an aspect of cultural diversity [26], led to a conflict episode
involving task conflict. A Singaporean student recalled, "For the presentation, the
French members had a problem with speaking English fluently. So we were doubtful
whether they would be able to present properly." Team members who were more
fluent in English initially felt apprehensive about allowing their French teammates to
present. However, the French teammates assured the team that they would prepare
their script carefully so that they could present effectively. This incident was consid-
ered as an episode of task conflict caused by cultural (linguistic) diversity. Conflict
attribution was categorical because the cause was attributed to the category of one
subgroup (the French). Conflict resolution approach was integrative because a solu-
tion that satisfied all parties was finally adopted.
Another conflict episode involving disagreements between engineering (four mem-
bers) and business majors (three members) occurred during the preparation for the
final presentation to the sponsor company. Both subgroups held very different view-
points on some issues. The engineering majors wanted to be very precise and to-the-
point in their presentation. They wanted to focus solely on key aspects of the findings.
However, the business majors preferred to include the details of all the work they had
done for the project, including interviews and thorough explanation of findings in
their presentation. This was considered as an episode of task conflict caused by func-
tional diversity. Conflict attribution was categorical because it was blamed on the
functional background of the subgroups. Conflict resolution approach was integra-
tive because the team eventually consulted the sponsor company and adopted a pre-
sentation mode preferred by the sponsor company. This mode incorporated elements
from both viewpoints.
Team C relied mostly on e-mail for communication, with large volumes of e-mail
being exchanged throughout the project. Information overload in e-mail communica-
tion led to a conflict episode involving task conflict. A member noted, "I remember
two weeks ago, as soon as I had done the first interview, I asked the whole team to
immediately think about the way we would structure the analysis of all the interviews
and what major trends we could identify. After two e-mail requests, I had received no
answer from anyone. Everyone ignored my message." This was considered as an
episode of task conflict stimulated by technology characteristics. Conflict attribution
was personal because the team member blamed his teammates for not responding.
Conflict resolution approach was distributive given that the team member was ig-
nored by his teammates.
Altogether, ten conflict episodes were identified and analyzed for Team C (see Table
8). Questionnaire responses and in-depth analysis suggested that the level of relation-
ship conflict was negligible but the level of task conflict was high (see Table 9).
Integrative conflict resolution approach was used most of the time in Team C. A team
member recalled, "We were very comfortable in expressing disagreement or criticiz-
ing each other. Even more, some of us were known as 'solutions-critics.' This was
done very openly because we all sought consensus in the interest of the team. We

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
spent time during our weekly meetings to address the concerns of critics and to achieve
consensus for the interests of all." Another team member summarized the conflict
resolution approach, "From the beginning, we really did integrate. Everyone was
accommodating. We talked through everything. That was really the way we sorted
things out." Among the three GVTs, Team C obtained the highest project grade.
Synthesis of Results Across Teams
Results obtained from within-GVT analysis of conflict episodes generate insights

on the antecedents of task conflict and relationship conflict, and the relationships
between conflict attribution and conflict resolution approaches. Results of across-
GVT analysis of conflict parameters yield some important clues on how task conflict
and relationship conflict may affect team performance, and how this effect may be
moderated by task characteristics and conflict resolution approach.
Cultural Diversity
Cultural (including national and linguistic) diversity was the antecedent of a majority
of conflict episodes (17 of 29) investigated in this study. Because cultural values
reflect and are conveyed through language during communication, linguistic diver-
sity typically entails cultural diversity and vice versa. However, cultural diversity
additionally includes national differences as well as differences along broader cul-
tural dimensions [26]. Among these 17 conflict episodes, five were coded as due to
linguistic issues, five were due to national issues, and seven were likely due to broader
cultural differences.
All three GVTs witnessed conflicts related to use of languages specific to particular
subgroups, which excluded other team members from participating in the discussion.
For example, Swedish members would break off into Swedish, Chinese-speaking
members would communicate in Mandarin, and French-speaking members would
converse in French. Whether such use was intentional or not, it reinforced language
divides among team members. Another language-related problem was due to more
fluent usage of English by native speakers. Native English speakers dominated the
airtime during conference calls and face-to-face meetings at the expense of other team-
mates. Linguistic diversity has been highlighted as an important aspect of cultural
diversity [26]. The literature on global teamwork has underscored the importance of
linguistic diversity in intercultural communication [38, 47]. Language-related prob-
lems have been highlighted in prior GVT studies [18, 74]. Conflict episodes analyzed
in this study reinforce this link between linguistic diversity and conflict in GVTs.
National diversity gave rise to conflict when team members of one nationality had
negative feelings toward their teammates of other nationalities because of their na-
tionality. Team B, which had an almost equal number of members from the United
States and Sweden, witnessed several episodes of such conflict. Team members from
these two countries made negative comments about each other's nationalities, often

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
involving stereotypes. Such conflict appears to be linked to specific national differ-

ences. Ethnocentrism (belief that one's own nationality is superior), prejudice (unfa-
vorable perception of people from other nationalities), and stereotyping (exaggerated
generalization of attributes about people from other nationalities) are three traits re-
lated to national diversity that hamper communication in GVTs [1]. These traits con-
tributed to conflict episodes observed in this study.
Conflict episodes likely to be due to differences along broader cultural dimensions
(individualism versus collectivism) were also witnessed in all three GVTs.1 Individu-
alism-collectivism differences may have caused team members to be divided in their
opinions on whether to place team interests before self [12], whether to adopt indi-
vidual- or group-based appraisal [21], and whether personal and professional matters
should overlap. Individualism-collectivism has been found to be a salient and stable
cultural dimension [22]. Empirical studies [13] have successfully used this cultural
dimension to predict human behavior. Studies on GVTs have also documented the
influence of this cultural dimension on team behavior [73] and conflict [49]. Conflict
episodes noted in this study add to such findings.
The effect of cultural (including national and linguistic) diversity on conflict may
be explained by similarity attraction theory [8] and social identity theory [68]. Simi-
larity attraction theory posits that people prefer to interact with like-minded others.
Social identity theory suggests that people like to be affiliated with others belonging
to their own social category (including culture and nationality). Previous studies [19,
36] suggest that nationality and race attributes give rise to naturally occurring team
fault lines along which conflict may emerge.
Social category diversity, which includes cultural diversity, has been reported to
provoke hostility among members of traditional teams [32]. Such hostility often sur-
faces as relationship conflict. Results of this study extend this finding to GVTs and
highlight the cultural component of social category diversity as being important to
GVT relationship conflict. Cultural (including national and linguistic) diversity has
been a major cause of relationship conflict (nine of the 1 1 conflict episodes exam-
ined) in all three GVTs.
Proposition la: Cultural (including national and linguistic) diversity can lead to
relationship conflict in GVTs.
Research on traditional teams has not examined how cultural diversity may be re-
lated to task conflict. However differences in cultural background can lead to differ-
ences in workplace attitudes and behavior. For example, individualism-collectivism
differences have been found to produce differing opinions on teamwork processes
and compensation [26, 69]. Results of this study add to the literature by suggesting
that cultural (including national and linguistic) diversity appears to be one of the
important causes of task conflict (eight of the 1 8 conflict episodes examined) in all
three GVTs.
Proposition 1b: Cultural (including national and linguistic) diversity can lead to
task conflict in GVTs.

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
Functional Diversity
Apart from cultural diversity, functional diversity was another antecedent of conflic
episodes (five of 29) indicated in this study. When people with different function
background work together, they may have dissimilar belief structures (e.g., priorities
assumptions, and understanding) based on their previous training and experience [3
51]. People with a business background typically see opportunities and issues fro
different vantage points compared to people with engineering training [20]. In a study
involving GVTs, students with different educational backgrounds have been report
to have different cognitive processes [74].
Based on the results of this study, functional diversity seems to be another cause of
task conflict apart from cultural diversity (five of 18 task conflict episodes exam
ined). In Teams A and B, the predominance of engineering and science majors (com
pared to business majors) might have resulted in less task conflict. Science an
engineering background majors are likely to be more proximate in functional as
sumptions as compared to differences with business majors. In Team C, engineerin
and business majors each made up about half the team. This might have caused mor
task conflict.
Proposition 2: Functional diversity can lead to task conflict in GVTs.
Given that we did not find instances of functional diversity leading to relationsh
conflict in the three GVTs examined, no propositions were formed in this regard.
Technology Characteristics
Yet another antecedent of conflict episodes was technology characteristics (five of

29). The volume of communication in teams tends to increase with the use of elec
tronic communication [16]. High access, one-to-many media such as e-mail allow
large volumes of communication on concurrent tasks and this often leads to inform
tion overload. Cognitive flexibility theory [67] suggests that, because of our limit
memory and processing capability, the human brain suffers from cognitive overlo
when there is too much information to digest. When this happens, teams are found to
ignore some information, thus engaging in biased discussion [24], or forget abou
some aspects of mutual knowledge, thus resulting in less shared reality [14].
Based on the results of this study, the large volume of electronic communication
through easily accessible media such as e-mail may be a cause of task conflict (two
1 8 task conflict episodes). In Teams A and C, information overload caused contribu
tions of some team members to be overlooked. When there were too many e-mails
be processed, members ignored some e-mails of other members. This caused resen
ment in the members whose e-mails had been overlooked. Team B had a lower vol-
ume of communication in terms of e-mail (see Table 4). They mainly used the Web
discussion board, which had a record of past messages for team communication.
They did not experience task conflict due to information overload.

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
Proposition 3 a: Volume of electronic communication can lead to task conflict in

GVTs.
For effective communication, people need to not just provide relevant information
but also receive feedback on their message. The use of asynchronous electronic me-
dia such as e-mail tends to delay feedback [6]. This lack of immediacy of feedback
can bring about conflict when communicating parties ascribe the wrong meanings to
instances of silence from the other end [14], giving rise to misunderstandings. Lack
of immediacy of feedback can be a distinct cause for conflict over and above infor-
mation overload. While overload causes ignoring of some communication, lack of
immediacy of feedback does not allow confirmation of receipt of communication.
Both technology characteristics have been identified as causes of lack of mutual un-
derstanding in teams [14].
Results of this study suggest that the lack of immediacy of feedback (arising from
asynchronous electronic communication) seems to be a cause of task conflict in addi-
tion to other causes such as diversity and information overload (three of 18 task con-
flict episodes). In Team A, delays in feedback caused team members to accuse each
other of inadequate contribution to the project. In Team C, such delays caused anxi-
ety among team members eager to make progress on their project. In Team B, mes-
sages that took some time to appear on the Web discussion board caused team members
to blame each other for not working fast enough. These delays led to task conflict.
Proposition 3b: Lack of immediacy of feedback (arising from the use of asyn-
chronous electronic media) can lead to task conflict in GVTs.
Results of this study agree with the group support systems literature that communi-
cation support increases task conflict (see Table 1). However, from our study, it is not
clear how electronic communication may affect relationship conflict. Given that such
instances have not been observed in the three GVTs studied, no propositions have
been formed.
Age and Gender Diversity
A few conflict episodes indicated age and gender diversity as possible antecedents
(two of 29 conflict episodes). All three GVTs had a fair amount of gender diversity
(see Table 2). Team C exhibited more age diversity than the other two GVTs because
one team member was significantly older than the others. Social identity theory [68]
posits that people like to be affiliated with others in the same social category (includ-
ing age and gender). Hence, age and gender diversity can potentially create fault lines
that give rise to conflict.
Team C witnessed a conflict episode arising from age diversity. The significantly
older team member had a different work schedule than the younger team members.
The younger members were inclined to working late just before project deadlines,
whereas the older team member preferred to adjust his schedule such that he would
not have to stay up late prior to deadlines. This resulted in scheduling conflict within

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
the team. This incident is consistent with predictions of social identity theory. Team A
experienced a conflict episode due to gender diversity. A male team member criti-
cized his female teammates for inappropriate behavior though he did not blame his
male teammates who behaved likewise. This incident is also consistent with predic-
tions of social identity theory.
However, there were few such conflict episodes, although all three GVTs had gen-
der diversity. This may be due to the fact that employees are increasingly adjusted to
a mixed-gender workplace and also due to the presence of more salient intrateam
diversity (cultural diversity) in the teams under study. With the exception of a few
studies [2], which have indicated higher levels of conflict in mixed-gender groups,
the findings in general indicate no influence of gender diversity on conflict [51].
Similarly for age diversity, the majority of studies have not been able to find signifi-
cant effects of such diversity on conflict [35, 51]. Given that there were few conflict
episodes involving age and gender diversity in the three GVTs examined, no proposi-
tions have been formed.
Conflict Attribution and Conflict Resolution Approach
For the conflict episodes coded in this study, Team A exhibited more personal attribu-
tion (five of 1 1 conflict episodes), Team B exhibited more categorical attribution (six
of eight conflict episodes), and Team C exhibited more situational attribution (seven
of ten conflict episodes). Overall, the results agree with prior predictions [14] that
members of GVTs are more likely to make personal or categorical attribution (18
episodes) rather than situational attribution ( 1 1 episodes). This is likely because, given
the lack of situational information about their remote teammates, people tend to make
more dispositional attribution [45].
According to attribution theory, personal attribution of a conflict blames the prob-
lem on the characteristics or behavior of individuals involved [21]. Because personal
attribution is likely to worsen relationships and break down the rules of communica-
tion [4], it may be less likely to lead to integrative conflict resolution that requires
solving the problem through collaboration. Personal attribution is therefore likely to
lead to distributive resolution, where the strongest party asserts over the others. Situ-
ational attribution of a conflict blames the problem on the situation or context [27]. In
such cases, the parties involved may be more amenable to collaborate to modify the
context because they do not blame each other and communication can be adapted
accordingly [4]. Therefore, situational attribution leaves the door open for integrative
conflict resolution. Categorical attribution [37] faults the problem to social categories
of the opposing group as opposed to characteristics of individuals. In such situations,
the adaptation or response to the problem could be constructive or destructive de-
pending on whether people are able to rationalize the categorical attribution or not
(i.e., different forms of conflict resolution are possible).
In accordance with the discussion above, different conflict attributions seemed to
lead to different conflict resolution approaches. In this study, personal attribution was
followed by mainly distributive conflict resolution (five of seven conflict episodes)

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
and situational attribution was followed by mainly integrative conflict resolution (10
of 1 1 conflict episodes). Categorical attribution was followed by integrative (three of
1 1 conflict episodes), distributive (four of 1 1 conflict episodes), or avoidance conflict
resolution (four of 1 1 conflict episodes). Because the finding about categorical attri-
bution is essentially a nonfmding, no proposition was formed about this type of attri-
bution.
Proposition 4a: Situational conflict attribution can lead to integrative conflict

resolution in GVTs.
Proposition 4b: Personal conflict attribution can lead to distributive conflict reso-
lution in GVTs.
Conflict Type, Task Characteristics, and Team Performance
Research on traditional teams suggests that higher levels of task conflict are associ-
ated with better team performance when teams work on nonroutine tasks [29]. In
accordance with previous research, results of this study reveal that task complexity
(which is inversely related to task routineness) may moderate the relationship be-
tween task conflict and team performance in GVTs. Task complexity is not likely to
directly affect team performance, but is likely to determine how task conflict will
influence performance. When task complexity is moderate or high, debate among the
members about the task can help bring out better solutions. However, when task com-
plexity is low, the solution is well understood and debate about the task may not be
beneficial.
In our study, Team C exhibited a high level of task conflict as well as a high level of
team performance. Working on a moderate complexity task, team performance seemed
to have benefited from the efforts of team members to challenge each other for better
ideas and debate with each other about pertinent issues. Although these efforts brought
about task conflict, the end result was high-quality solutions for the moderate com-
plexity task. Team B displayed a low level of task conflict as well as a low level of
team performance. Although the team was confronted with a high-complexity task,
team members failed to thoroughly debate the key issues pertaining to the task. As a
result, the team did not experience much task conflict, nor was the team able to offer
high-quality solutions for the task. More task conflict could potentially have yielded
better solutions for this high-complexity task. In Team A, the low-complexity task did
not require team members to deeply discuss issues pertaining to the task. Hence, the
low level of task conflict did not seem to adversely affect the quality of the solutions.
While we have an indication of the nature of the moderation effect, we do not propose
the specific nature of the effect because our findings derive from one set of levels of
moderating variables in the three teams and not from a larger sample of teams. The
same holds for the other moderating P5b, P6a, and P6b. Overall,
Proposition 5a: Task complexity can moderate the relationship between task con-
flict and team performance in GVTs.

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
The literature on traditional teams suggests that higher levels of relationship co

flict are associated with lower team performance when teams work on interdependen
tasks [29]. Results of this study reveal that task interdependence may also moder
the relationship between relationship conflict and team performance in GVTs. Wh
task interdependence may not affect team performance directly by itself, it is likely
influence the relationship between relationship conflict and performance. When t
interdependence is moderate or high, relationship conflict may not allow team me
bers to work together to accomplish their task. However, when task interdepende
is low, relationship conflict may not affect performance because members can ign
the unpleasantness and work independently to accomplish the task.
In our study, Team C exhibited a low level of relationship conflict and a high le
of team performance. Working on a moderate interdependence task, team memb
had to work cohesively to complete the task well. Indeed, team members collab
rated very well and often tried to facilitate the efforts of each other. The result
team spirit seemed to be critical as the team worked together to generate high-qu
ity solutions for the moderate-interdependence task. Team B displayed a moderat
level of relationship conflict and a low level of team performance. Although th
team was working on a high-interdependence task, some team members did no
integrate their work well with the rest of the team due to relationship conflict. C
sequently, the team failed to put together their materials to offer high-quality so
tions for the task. Less relationship conflict could potentially have resulted in bet
solutions for this high-interdependence task. In Team A, the low-interdepende
task did not require team members to work together closely to attain quality sol
tions for the task. The team showed a high level of relationship conflict arising fr
mutual hostility among team members, who criticized the attitudes of each othe
However, this did not seem to adversely affect the quality of the solutions for t
low-interdependence task. Overall,
Proposition 5b: Task interdependence can moderate the relationship between

relationship conflict and team performance in GVTs.
Conflict Type, Conflict Resolution Approach, and

Team Performance
The literature on virtual teams suggests that the interaction style among team members
affects team performance [54]. Results of this study reinforce this observation by show-
ing that conflict resolution approach (which is related to interaction style) moderates
the relationship between conflict and team performance in GVTs. Conflict resolution
approach is not likely to influence team performance by itself, but is likely to influence
performance in conjunction with the type of conflict. Task conflict needs to be re-
solved either integratively (through collaboration) or distributively (through assertion
such as a manager or superior would do) because avoiding or ignoring the conflict is
not likely to lead to beneficial task outcomes. On the other hand, relationship conflict
should be resolved integratively (through collaboration) to avoid harmful effects on

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
performance. Distributive or avoidance resolution can leave members with low cohe-
sion and team efficacy, leading to lower performance.
In our study, Team C seemed to have benefited from the use of the integrative
conflict resolution approach to deal with their high level of task conflict. This ap-
proach drove the team to continually search for ideas and solutions that were better
than those suggested. They obtained a high grade. Team B appeared to have suffered
from the use of avoidance conflict resolution approach to deal with their moderate
level of relationship conflict. By not addressing the conflict, team members failed to
develop good team rapport that would have allowed them to work together more
effectively to complete the task. They obtained a low grade. Team A did not seem to
have benefited from the use of distributive conflict resolution approach. This ap-
proach might have helped them to make some progress on resolving task conflict,
when team members could not agree on issues related to the task. However, this
approach also appeared to have added to the hostility in the team and contributed to
relationship conflict, when team members engaged in mutual criticisms after some
subgroups won and others lost in disagreements pertaining to personal issues. The
team obtained a moderate grade.
Prior research suggests that the integrative conflict resolution approach tends to be
most effective in facilitating team performance, followed by the distributive approach,
and finally the avoidance approach [58]. In this study, the distributive conflict resolu-
tion approach had alleviated task conflict in Team B but aggravated relationship con-
flict in the same team. Therefore, results of this study add to earlier findings by
demonstrating that the distributive conflict resolution approach may not be less effec-
tive than the integrative approach for resolving task conflict in GVTs. Also, the dis-
tributive conflict resolution approach may not be more effective than the avoidance
approach for resolving relationship conflict in GVTs. Overall,
Proposition 6a: Conflict resolution approach can moderate the relationship be-
tween task conflict and team performance in GVTs.
Proposition 6b: Conflict resolution approach can moderate the relationship be-
tween relationship conflict and team performance in GVTs.
Figure 2 summarizes the propositions developed in this study. This model can be
used to guide future empirical research efforts on conflict in GVTs. Besides verifying
the body of knowledge on traditional teams for applicability in the context of GVTs,
this model also highlights some key issues pertaining to conflict in GVTs. First, GVTs
rely heavily on communication technology for coordination in the course of complet-
ing their task. Communication technology characteristics can induce task conflict in
GVTs. Second, GVTs are typically composed of members from a number of differ-
ent nationalities. Cultural (including national and linguistic) diversity can lead to both
task conflict and relationship conflict. Third, GVTs are often formed to deal with
complex tasks or interdependent tasks. Task complexity and task interdependence
can moderate the effect of task conflict and relationship conflict, respectively, on
team performance.

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
Conflict attribution
Volume of P4a,b
electronic ■
comm
P3a j^l P6a P6b

~ ; ; I
Functional P2 t
diversity I Plb *'
I
Cultural diversity i
interdepende
Figure 2. Proposed Model of Con
Conclusion
Through an in-depth investigation of conflict episodes in three GVTs, this

study contributes to our understanding of conflict in GVTs in several important ways.
First, it confirms that certain aspects of previous theory related to conflict in tradi-
tional teams hold for GVTs. For example, the relationship between functional diver-
sity and task conflict can be extended from traditional teams to GVTs. Also, the
moderating effect of task characteristics on the relationships between conflict and
team performance apply in traditional teams as well as in GVTs. Second, this study
extends other aspects of previous theory to apply to GVTs. For example, cultural
(including national and linguistic) diversity has been found to induce conflict in GVTs
much more than in traditional teams. Also, the relationship between cultural diversity
and task conflict has been indicated for GVTs. This is salient given that previous
studies [32, 51] have not considered how social category diversity may be related to
task conflict. Third, this study pinpoints the role of communication technology in
bringing about conflict in GVTs. It identifies two technology characteristics (large
volume of electronic communication and lack of immediacy of feedback) that lead to
task conflict in GVTs. This is significant because GVTs rely on such communication
technology to a large extent and therefore should be aware of such consequences.
Fourth, this study provides some clues on the relationship between conflict attribu-
tion and conflict resolution approaches in GVTs. These initial findings can be veri-
fied in future research on conflict in GVTs.

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
Limitations and Extensions
The main limitation of this study is that the results are obtained based on an in-depth
study of conflict episodes in three GVTs. While allowing richer analysis to be per-
formed, this limits the generalizability of our findings. We see this study as a step
toward facilitating larger-scale studies in organizational contexts (other than the uni-
versity and sponsor organization in this study) in which the effect of organizational
factors on GVT conflict could also be investigated. For instance, the role of leader-
ship, organizational culture, and power could also be studied in the context of GVT
conflict. Also, GVT conflict phenomena in different domains, such as software de-
velopment or customer service, and for different GVT structures, such as networked
or parallel teams, could be explored.
Moreover, future studies may extend the model of Figure 2 by further examining
the effect of communication technology characteristics and functional diversity on
relationship conflict. Finer conceptualization of conflict types (including process con-
flict) and conflict resolution approaches (including accommodating and compromis-
ing) could be considered. The relationship between conflict type and resolution
approach could be explored. Other dimensions of culture and their effect on conflict
resolution approach could also be investigated. Outcomes besides team performance
such as satisfaction and the feedback effects of outcomes on antecedents of conflict
may be investigated. The relationships in the model of Figure 2 can be tested for
generalizability through large-scale surveys.
Suggestions for Practice
Results of this study offer several suggestions for managing conflict in GVTs. First,
the causes of task conflict and relationship conflict in GVTs can be identified and
made known to team members through training. GVTs can examine their cultural
(including national and linguistic) and functional composition to identify potential
fault lines from their inception so that they can more readily evolve mechanisms and
norms to deal with such differences. During the course of their work, better aware-
ness of diversity and its implications can lead to better adjustment behaviors on the
part of members. For example, differences in assumptions between members from
individualistic cultures and members from collectivistic cultures can be highlighted
to team members so that they can better appreciate the perspectives of their team-
mates. Likewise, differences in thinking between more technical (engineering or sci-
ence) background members and members with business background can be openly
discussed so that members can have a better understanding of mutual perspectives.
These measures may help to alleviate conflict in GVTs.
Second, managers of GVTs should be aware of the potential conflicts resulting
from team diversity and the performance effects of conflict. Where possible, cultural
diversity can be minimized through appropriate selection of team members when the
team is likely to work on a high interdependence task. Some global organizations
such as IBM and Hewlett-Packard have attempted to deal with potentially adverse

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
effects of cultural diversity by promoting a dominant organizational culture for the

employees [48, 61]. Also, if the team is likely to work on high-complexity task
functional diversity can be encouraged to the extent that it brings to bear a wid
variety of perspectives and thereby promotes discussion about task alternatives. H
ever, the ensuing task conflict needs to be resolved integratively or distributive
rather than ignored, in order to stimulate performance.
Third, managers of GVTs need to be aware of communication technology effec
such as large volume of electronic communication and lack of immediacy of fe
back that may affect conflict. Advanced communication technologies that may a
viate overload problems arising from large volume of communication include gro
calendar systems, such as Lotus Raven, and e-mail filtering systems, such as A
and SPIDER [70]. Techniques that may alleviate problems due to lack of immedi
of feedback include establishing periodic conference calls for synchronization
norms for responding to e-mails and Web postings.
Finally, managers of GVTs should be cognizant of the relationship between co
flict attribution and conflict resolution approaches as well as the effectiveness of va
ous conflict resolution approaches. The integrative conflict resolution approach h
been reported to be most effective. This approach is likely to be used when ther
situational conflict attribution. Some groupware may have consensus-building ca
bilities that support this approach [62]. Where it is not possible to use this approa
GVTs may rely on the distributive conflict resolution approach if they have to rapid
deal with task conflict so as to meet deadlines. This approach is likely to be use
when there is personal conflict attribution.
GVTs will play an increasingly important role in organizations that seek to com
pete globally. As an emerging structure that has become possible and popular dur
the past decade (with rapid advances in communication technology), knowledge ab
how to effectively manage GVT conflict is currently lacking. While many anecd
accounts of GVT benefits have appeared in the popular press, factors that may i
crease the probability of realizing these benefits (or factors that may hinder atta
ment of these benefits) are not well understood. Through an in-depth examination
conflict episodes in three GVTs that culminated in a theoretical model, this stu
attempts to shed some light on how to manage conflict in GVTs. Future resear
along this line can help organizations to unlock the benefits that GVTs may bring
Note
1. While we did not measure members' individualism-collectivism orientation through

scale items, a notion of their orientation was obtained during interviews with project members.
Also, team members indicated particular episodes they felt were caused by differences along
this orientation.
References
1. Adler, R.B.; Rosenfield, L.B.; and Towne, N. Interplay: The Process of Interpersonal
Communication. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace, 1995.

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
2. Alagna, S.; Reddy, D.; and Collins, D. Perceptions of functioning in mixed-sex and male
medical training groups. Journal of Medical Education, 57, 10 (1982), 801-803.
3. Barki, H., and Hartwick, J. Interpersonal conflict and its management in information
systems development. MIS Quarterly, 25, 2 (2001), 195-228.
4. Blakar, R. Communication: A Social Perspective on Clinical Issues. New York: Colum-
bia University Press, 1984.
5. Blau, P.M. Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: Free Press, 1977.
6. Brennan, S. The grounding problem in conversations with and through computers. In S.
Fussell and R. Kreuz (eds.), Social and Cognitive Approaches to Interpersonal Communica-
tion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998, pp. 210-225.
7. Bunderson, J.S., and Sutcliffe, K.M. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of func-
tional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 45, 5 (2002), 875-893.
8. Byrne, D. The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press, 1971.
9. Campbell, D. Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review,
13, 1 (1988), 40-52.
10. Carte, T.A., and Chidambaram, L. A capabilities-based theory of technology deployment
in diverse teams: Leapfrogging the pitfalls of diversity and leveraging its potential with col-
laborative technology. Journal of the AIS, 5, 1 1-12 (2004), 448-471.
11. Chatman, J. Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public
accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 3 (1991), 459-484.
12. Chatman, J., and Barsade, S. Personality, culture and cooperation: Evidence from a busi-
ness simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 3 (1995), 423-443.
13. Chen, C.C.; Chen, X.P.; and Meindl, J.R. How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural
effects of individualism-collectivism. Academy of Management Review, 23, 2 (1998), 285-304.
14. Cramton, CD. The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences tor dispersed col-
laboration. Organization Science, 12, 3 (2001), 346-371.
15. Dennis, A.K., and vaiacicn, j.ò. KetninKing meaia ncnness: iowaras a tneory oi meaia
synchronicity. In R.H. Sprague Jr. (ed.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Hawaii Interna-
tional Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1999
(available at http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/1999/0001/01/0001 1017.PDF).
16. DeSanctis, G., and Monge, P. Communication processes tor virtual organizations. Orga-
nization Science, 10, 6 (1999), 693-703.
17. Duarte, D.L., and Snyder, N.T. Mastering Virtual Teams: Strategies, Tools, and Tech-
niques that Succeed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.
18. Dube, L., and Pare, G. Global virtual teams. Communications of the ACM, 44, 12 (2001),
71-73.
19. Earley, P.C., and Mosakowski, E. Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of
transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1 (2000), 26-49.
20. Eisenhardt, K.; Kahwajy, J.L.; and Bourgeoise, L.J. Conflict and strategic choice: How
top management teams disagree. California Management Review, 39, 2 (1997), 42-62.
21. Entrekin, L., and Chung, Y.W. Attitudes towards different sources of executive appraisal:
A comparison of Hong Kong Chinese and American managers in Hong Kong. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 6 (2001), 965-987.
22. Gelfand, M.J., and Christakopoulou, S. Culture and negotiator cognition: Judgment ac-
curacy and negotiation processes in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 3 (1999), 248-269.
23. Gruenfeld, D.H.; Mannix, E.A.; Williams, K.Y.; and Neale, M.A. Group composition
and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 1 (1996), 1-15.
24. Hightower, R., and Sayeed, L. The impact of computer-mediated communication sys-
tems on biased group discussion. Computers in Organizational Behavior, 11, 1 (1995), 33-44.
25. Hinds, P., and Bailey, D. Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed
teams. Organization Science, 14, 6 (2003), 615-632.
26. Hofstede, G.H. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-
Hill, 1991.

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
27. Hultberg, M.; Alve, S.; and Blakar, R. Patterns of attribution of communication diffic
ties in couples with a "borderline," a "schizophrenic," or a "normal" offspring. In R. Bla
(ed.), Studies of Familial Communication and Psychopathology: A Social Development A
Dwach to Deviant Behavior. New York: Columbia University Press. 1980. dd. 66-104.
28. Jarvenpaa, S.L.; Knoll, K.; and Leidner, D.E. Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust
in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 4 (Spring 1998),
29-64.
29. Jehn, K.A. A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 2 (1995), 256-282.
30. Jehn, K.A. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational
groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 3 (1997), 530-557.
31. Jehn, K.A., and Mannix, H.A. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of
intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 2 (2001),
238-251.
32. Jehn, K.A.; Northcraft, G.B.; and Neale, M.A. Why differences make a difference: A
field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quar-
terly. 44, 4 (1999), 741-763.
33. Kayworth, T., and Leidner, D.E. Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. Jour-
nal of Management Information Systems, 18, 3 (Winter 2001-2002), 7-40.
34. Kirchmeyer, C, and Cohen, A. Multicultural groups: Their performance and reactions
with constructive conflict. Group and Organization Management, 17,2 (1992), 153-170.
35. Knight, D.; Pearce, C.L.; Smith, K.G.; Olian, J.D.; Sims, H.P.; Smith, K.A.; and Flood,
P. Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 20, 5 (1999), 445-465.
36. Lau, D.C., and Murmghan, J.K. Demographic diversity and faulthnes: The composi-
tional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 2 (1998),
325-340.
37. Lea, M., and Spears, R. Paralanguage and social perception in computer mediated com-
munication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 3-4 (1992), 321-341.
38. Lipnack, J., and Stamps, J. Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, lime and Organiza-
tions with Technology. New York: Wiley, 1997.
39. Mannix, fc,.A.; urirntn, i.l.; ana JNeaie, m.a. ine pnenomenoiogy oi coniaci m virtual
work teams. In P.J. Hinds and S. Kiesler (eds.), Distributed Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2002,213-232.
40. McGrath, J.E. Time, interaction and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group
Research, 22, 2 (1991), 147-174.
4 1 . Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.
42. Miranda, S.M., and Bostrom, R.P. The impact of group support systems on group con-
flict and conflict management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10, 3 (Winter
1993-1994), 63-95.
43. Montoya- Weiss, M.M.; Massey, A.P.; and Song, M. Getting it together: Temporal coor-
dination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal,
44, 6(2001), 1251-1262.
44. Mortensen, M., and Hinds, F.J. Conilict and snared identity in geographically distributed
teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 3 (2001), 212-238.
45. Nisbett, R.; Caputo, C; Legant, P.; and Marecek, J. Behavior as seen by the actor and as
seen by the observer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27,2 (1973), 154-164.
46. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
47. O Hara-Oevereaux, M., and Johansen, K. uiobalwork: Bridging Distance, Culture, and
Time. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
48. Packard, D. The HP Way: How Bill Hewlett and I Built Our Company. JNew York: Harper
Business, 1995.
49. Paul, S.; Samarah, I.M.; Seetharaman, P.; and Mykytyn, P.P. An empirical investigation
of collaborative conflict management style in group support system-based global virtual teams.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 21, 3 (Winter 2004-2005), 185-222.

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
50. Pelled, L.H. Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening
process theory. Organization Science, 7, 6 (1996), 615-631.
51. Pelled, L.H.; Eisenhardt, K.M.; and Xin, K.R. Exploring the black box: An analysis of
work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1 ( 1 999),
1-28.
52. Pinkley, R.L. Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of conflict. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 74, 2 (1990), 1 17-126.
53. Pinsonneault, A., and Kraemer, K.L. The impact of technological support on groups: An
assessment of the empirical research. Decision Support Systems, 5 (Special Issue 1989), 197-216.
54. Potter, R.E., and Balthazard, P.A. Virtual team interaction styles: Assessment and effects.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56, 4 (2002), 423-443.
55. Powell, A.; Piccoli, G.; and Ivés, B. Virtual teams: A review of current literature and
direction for future research. DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35, 1 (2004),
6-36.
56. Quinn, J.B. Intelligent Enterprise: A Knowledge and Service Based Paradigm for Indus-
try. New York: Free Press, 1992.
57. Qureshi, S., and Zigurs, I. Paradoxes and prerogatives in global virtual collaboration.
Communications of the ACM, 44, 12 (2001), 85-88.
58. Rahim, M.A. Managing Conflict in Organizations. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 2001.
59. Robbins, S.P. Managing Organizational Conflict. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1974.
60. Robey, D.L.; Smith, L.A.; and Vijayasarathy, L.R. Perceptions of conflict and success in
information systems development projects. Journal of Management of Information Systems,
10, 1 (Summer 1993), 123-139.
61. Rodgers, B., and Shook, R.L. The IBM Way: Insights into the World's Most Successful
Marketing Organization. New York: Harper & Row, 1986.
oz. òambamurtny, v., ana Fooie, M.5. ine eneas oí variations in capaoiiiiies oí uujò
designs on management of cognitive conflict in groups. Information Systems Research, 3, 3
(1992), 224-251.
bô. launders, l:.í>. virtual teams: necing togetner tne puzzle, in k. ¿mua ^ea.;, traming me
Domains of IT Management Research: Glimpsing the Future Through the Past. Cincinnati,
OH: Pinnaflex, 2000, pp. 29-50.
64. Sawyer, S. Effects of intra-group conflict on packaged software development team per-
formance. Information Systems Journal. 1L2 (200 H. 155-178.
65. Sillars, A.L. Attributions and communication in roommate conflict. Communication
Monographs, 47, 3 (1980), 180-200.
66. Sosik, J.J., and Jung, D.I. Work group characteristics and performance in collectivism
and individualistic cultures. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 1 (2002), 5-24
07. Spiro, K.J.; heltovich, F.J.; Jacobson, M.J.; and Coulson, K.L. cognitive nexiDinty,
constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition
in ill-structured domains. In L.P. Steife and J. Gale (eds.), Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995, pp. 85-109.
68. Tajfel, H., and Turner, J.C. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel
and W.G. Austin (eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1986.
69. Tan, B.C.Y.; Wei, K.K.; Watson, R.T.; Clapper, D.C.; and McLean, E.R. Computer-
mediated communication and majority influence: Assessing the impact in an individualistic
and a collectivistic culture. Management Science, 44, 9 (1998), 1263-1278.
70. Teeni, D. A cognitive affective model of organizational communication for designing IT.
MIS Quarterly, 25, 2 (2001), 251-312.
71. Triandis. H.C. Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder. CO: Westview. 1995.
72. Van de Ven, A.H., and Ferry, D.L. Measuring and Assessing Organizations. New York
Wiley, 1980 (available at http://webpages.csom.umn.edu/smo/avandeven/Oai%20book
COVFR HTMÌ
73. Vogel, D.R.; Davison, R.M.; and Shroff, R.H. Sociocultural learning: A p
GSS-enabled global education. Communications of the AIS, 7, article 9 (2001
http://cais.isworld.org/articles/7-9/default.asp?View=html&x=49&y=ll).

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
74. Vogel, D.R.; van Genuchten, M.; Lou, D.; Verveen, S.; van Eekout, M; and Adams,
Exploratory research on the role of national and professional cultures in a distributed learn
project. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44, 2 (2001), 114-125.
75. Williams, K.Y., and O'Reilly, C.A. Demography and diversity in organizations. In B
Staw and R.M. Sutton (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. Stamford, CT: JAI Pr
1998. nn. 77-140.
76. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 2002
77. Zigurs, I., and Buckland, B.K. A theory of task/technology fit and group support system
effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 22, 3 (1998), 313-334.
Appendix
Interview Outline
1 . Can you identify some episodes of conflict in your team?

a. What things were frowned upon in your team?
b. What made people dislike working in your team?
c. What tensions were there in your team?
d. What problems occurred in your team?
2. What was the cause of the conflict?
a. People? Please elaborate.
b. Technology? Please elaborate.
c. Others? Please elaborate.
3. What was the nature of the conflict?
a. Task? Please elaborate.
b. Relationship? Please elaborate.

4. What was the level of the conflict?
a. Low (hardly any differentiation among positions).
b. Medium (some differentiation among positions).
c. High (very clear differentiation among positions).
5. What was the conflict resolution approach used?
a. Integrative? Please elaborate.
b. Distributive? Please elaborate.
c. Avoidance? Please elaborate.
Questionnaire Items
1 . Task conflict: scale of 1 (never) to 7 (always).

a. My team tended to disagree over alternatives.
b. The disagreements experienced by my team were directly related to task.
c. My team members disagreed over solutions proposed.
d. My team members advocated different viewpoints.
e. The differences experienced by my team were task related.
2. Relationship conflict: scale of 1 (never) to 7 (always).
a. My team members confronted each other on personal matters.
b. My team members made negative remarks about each other.

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00
c. Negative comments made by some of my team members were targeted at

others.
d. Some of my team members tended to ridicule others.

e. The differences experienced by my team were interpersonal related.
3. Avoidance conflict resolution approach: scale of 1 (never) to 7 (always).
a. My team members attempted to avoid confronting each other.
b. My team members did not acknowledge and confront conflict openly.
c. My team members ignored others who expressed a different viewpoint.
d. My team members avoided taking controversial positions.
4. Distributive conflict resolution approach: scale of 1 (never) to 7 (always).
a. Some of my team members yielded during conflict though they did not
agree.
b. Some of my team members dominated others during disagreements.
c. Some of my team members attempted to win their positions during
arguments.
d. Our solutions satisfied the criteria of only some of my team members.
5. Integrative conflict resolution approach: scale of 1 (never) to 7 (always).
a. My team members examined the viewpoints of everyone.
b. My team members resolved conflict by meeting the criteria of everyone.
c. My team members attempted to integrate the objectives of everyone.
d. Our solutions satisfied the criteria of everyone.

13.236.127.243 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:43:35 +00:00

07 - Kankanhalli ConflictPerformanceGlobal 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

07 - Kankanhalli ConflictPerformanceGlobal 2006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

07 - Kankanhalli ConflictPerformanceGlobal 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflict and Performance in Global Virtual Teams

Author(s): Atreyi Kankanhalli, Bernard C. Y. Tan and Kwok-Kee Wei

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40398861

This content downloaded from

ATREYI KANKANHALLI, BERNARD C.Y. TAN, AND

Atreyi Kankanhalli is Assistant Professor of Information Systems at the Natio

Kwok-Kee Wei is Head and Chair Professor in the Department of Information Sy

This content downloaded from

ABSTRACT: Increasing globalization and advances in communication technology have

Key words and PHRASES: communication technology, conflict resolution, con-

Increasing globalization and the opportunities presented by improving com-

This content downloaded from

Because our study aims to investigate the influence of team, technology, an

This content downloaded from

Conflict Attribution and Resolution

This content downloaded from

An important aspect of social category diversity in GVT is cultural diversity. In

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Scope of This Study

Table 1 summarizes the conflict literature by highlighting the relationships betw

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

TEAM DIVERSITY CONFLICT TYPE

- - - "► Relationships not yet studied I _

figure 1. Relationships Between Key Concepts in the Context of GVT Conflict

This content downloaded from

cS co â^Ç ^ cr o ^cr 2^£ §

This content downloaded from

Team A was assigned a global project sponsored by an international consulting co

This content downloaded from

& lîIlPIIHI Hf jiliîlf

This content downloaded from

Measures and Data Analysis

This content downloaded from

Table 4. Technology Use by GVT

E-mails per student 437/1 1 = 39.7 248/9 = 27.6 374/7 = 53.4

Table 5. Data Collection Protocol

Data source Details

Semistructured interviews • Interviews with team members and course

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Table 6. Construct Measurement

Team diversity Based on team composition Team member

This content downloaded from

Fable 7. Construct Reliabilities

This content downloaded from

educational backgrounds, and was characterized by relatively high gender diversity

This content downloaded from

functional backgrounds, characterized by relatively higher gender diversity and low

This content downloaded from

Table 8. Summary of Conflict Episodes

Conflict episodes Team A Team B TeamC

This content downloaded from

Table 9. Summary of Conflict Parameters

Conflict Parameter Team A TeamB TeamC

Level of task conflict Low Low High

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from