1. Distributed Work

2. 2 2 Overview Today Review evidence about effects of distributed work on task & social outcomes in teams Try to understand what problems arise & why they occur Subsequent classes will delve into several of these problems areas in depth Familiarity Common ground & communication effectiveness The visual element in communication Why face-to-face communication is distinct Identity and goal conflicts Diversity Ways to improve the performance of distributed teams

3. 3 3 Overview Distance collaborations are increasing Fewer collaborations start & complete as distance between collaborators grow Distributed software teams take longer to complete comparable work Distributed scientific teams are less successful in science, education & group maintenance Distributed teams endure more conflict

4. 4 4 Despite problems, distance work is frequent & increasing How many of you have been part of distributed teams? 67% of companies anticipate increased reliance on virtual teams 80% for companies with 10,000+ employees 35% of respondents rated difficulty of management as top challenge for virtual teams 92% said trust is critical for virtual teams Survey by Institute for Corporate Productivity

5. 5 5 Rise in long distance collaboration International scientific collaboration

6. 6 6 Problems

7. 7 7 Distributed software development takes twice as long Distributed software is increasingly common But software development takes longer when performed by geographically distributed teams Compare software development efficiency, when all developers are at one location or distributed across sites Two different software development organizations Time to complete an “MR” (Modification Request) Espinosa, et al. (2007). Familiarity, complexity, and team performance in geographically distributed software development. Organization Science, 18(4), 613-630. Herbsleb et al. (2001). An empirical study of global software development: distance and speed. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on software engineering.

8. 8 8 Cummings & Kiesler (2005; 2007) Study of Large NSF Projects Two studies of the outcomes of large NSF funding initiatives 71 Knowledge & Distributed Intelligence projects 1998/99 491 Information Technology Research Projects, 2001-2003 PIs complete questionnaires describing Collaboration composition Coordination techniques used Scientific & educational success

9. 9 9 Six types of outcomes

10. 10 Research Model & Consistent Findings Multi-university projects were less successful than single- university projects More successful projects used a variety of specific coordination mechanisms Multi-university projects used fewer coordination mechanisms than single- university projects Reduced use of coordination mechanisms mediated the relationship between # of university and performance Knowledge Outcomes** Tools Outcomes t Training Outcomes** Outreach Outcomes Collaboration Outcomes Leverage Outcomes t Number Universities

11. 11 Why? What intervening variables influence collaboration and are harmed by: Distance Difference in location or setting Technology-mediated communication Distance Outputs Performance Satisfaction Group maintenance InputsProcesses ??

12. 12 Why? What intervening variables influence collaboration and are harmed by: Distance Difference in location or setting Technology-mediated communication Distance

13. 13 With distance Coordination/Task Fewer communication events Less effective communication per episode Motivation/Socio- emotional Differences between distributed groups Lack of common identity

14. 14 Frequency of Communication Communication declines rapidly with distance Communication frequency halves with doubling of distance with asymptote at ~30 meters Shape of curve similar for face-to-face & phone communication. Less steep for email & IM communication Allen, T. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

15. 15 Causes & consequences of reduced communication Why? Consequences

16. 16 Causes & consequences of reduced communication Why? Much communication is spontaneous/unintentional Communication conceived as a Brownian process, enabled by chance encounters when people come together in space & time Consequences Less awareness Coordination Information exchange Liking

17. 17 Increase in task conflict Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615-632.

18. 18

19. 19 Quality of Communication Episodes Many telecom technologies lack important features of face-to-face communication Email: Non-interactive, simultaneous, sequence not preserved Phone: Looses visual information –both context of discussion & details of discussants Video: Delay, asymmetrical fields of view, problems of resolutions & control Technology mediated communication is generally more effortful & less effective than face-to-face communication More difficult to develop common ground More difficult to express subtleties of emotion Technology mediated communication can offer useful features unavailable in face-to-face settings & improve conversation Simultaneous input Archive of the discussion

20. 20 Resources Available from Collocation Shared space Development of common ground Pick up information from the periphery Ease of reconfiguration

21. 21 Collocation Improves Communication

22. 22 Information Sharing Information sharing is less even & complete across sites than within Frequency of communication Willingness to share Knowledge of who knows what Effects of technology Priorities are better aligned and coordination is more successful within sites than between

23. 23 Social Identity Groups split across location tend to be less cohesive than collocated groups Pre-existing differences across sites (culture, local loyalties, language)  cleavages Reduced contact  less individual liking Social categorization effects: Us vs. them Less cooperation between sites than within sites

24. 24 Increase in affective conflict Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615-632.

25. 25 Herbsleb et al: Differences between collocated and distributed software development Herbsleb, J. D., Mock<us, A., Finholt, T. A., & Grinter, R. E. (2001). An empirical study of global software development: distance and speed. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on software engineering. > < < > > > > > > > <

26. 26 Shared Context: Cramton, Mutual Knowledge Problem Members confronted by different contexts & pressures Members in different organizations  different value systems Members in different nations  different calendars and deadlines Members in different units  different workloads Remote members don’t recognize contextual constraints on behavior  attribute problems to personal instead of situational causes E.g., Absence attributed to unresponsiveness or laziness, instead of competing demands or holiday. Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346-371.

27. 27 Reduction in co-worker familiarity Distributed work Reduced discussion of work Fewer work observations Reduced personal disclosure Reduced socializing Less familiarity about: Work & communication styles Capability & interests Personalities Roles Cultural context Weaker relationships Slow responsiveness Less communication Less discussion of difficult person & work topics

28. 28 Site visits & co-worker familiarity Hinds, P. J., & Cramton, C. D. (2013). Situated Coworker Familiarity: How Site Visits Transform Relationships Among Distributed Workers. Organization Science, 25(3), 794-814.

29. 29 Interpersonal conflict