Fluent Essays

Given the growth in telecommuting and other mobile work arrangements, how might offices physically change in the coming years? Will offices as we think of them today exist in the next ten years? Why or why not?Please make your initial post with 500 words and two response posts with at least 150 words substantive. A substantive post will do at least TWO of the following:Ask an interesting, thoughtful question pertaining to the topicAnswer a question (in detail) posted by another student or the instructorProvide extensive additional information on the topicExplain, define, or analyze the topic in detailShare an applicable personal experienceProvide an outside source (for example, an article from the UC Library) that applies to the topic, along with additional information about the topic or the source (please cite properly in APA)Make an argument concerning the topic.At least one scholarly source should be used in the initial discussion thread. Be sure to use information from your readings and other sources from the UC Library. Use proper citations and references in your post. technology_adoption_by_global_virtual_teams.pdf ch04_1_.pptx Unformatted Attachment Preview Technology A doption by G lobal V irtu a l Teams: D eveloping a Cohesive Approach W illiam J. Harris, University o f Maryland University College International trade and collaboration continue to expand in the development of products, services, and interdependent-market activities. Such expansion has resulted in an increase in global engineering groups’ interaction across cultures. These groups exist, in part, because technology now supports geographically distributed organizations, which allows them to improve performance and outcome. However, in many instances, the cultural differences among group members have become problematic in their work (Clear, 2010; Nisbett, 2003). Both research and practice have shown that these groups, and the technology they use, may form working structures that are incompatible with many culturally diverse organizations. This essay explores and uncovers pertinent issues and provides a conceptual framework that will allow company managers to adopt technology that is compatible across global virtual teams (GVT) and organizations. The aim of this paper is to identify implications and provide guidance to managers who may be faced with designing and leading m ulti­ national groups tasked with solving complex problems. In short, this research will provide guidance to those managers that will allow them to put theory into practice. Background and Context o f Global V irtu a l Teams Global engineering teams in the public sector are tasked to provide various capabilities for government agencies. Contractors that serve various government 4 agencies and tasked to integrate global technical capabilities employ many such teams. Often, groups are formed without a physical presence as enabled by technology (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014). These engineering team members, being diverse both in their fields of expertise and in their geographic location, are expected to work and perform together, fully exploiting their abilities and accumulation of knowledge to design capabilities and/or resolve unique problems (Pavlak, 2004). Often, these teams are comprised of a variety of engineers from fields such as software, hardware, systems, mechanical, and other disciplines. For these teams, teamwork agility and decision making are essential (Lowry, Schuetzler, Giboney, & Gregory, 2015). An engineering team’s advantage, then - as well as their challenge - is their collective diversity and tremendous knowledge and expertise (Harris, 2018). Team tasking evolves from the first stage of identifying a problem or requirements to creating capabilities, introducing new features to existing products, and then, through to production, technical services, sustainment, and operations (Defense Acquisition System, n.d.). The full lifecycle of a project, whether creating products or providing technical services, will eventually include the interchange of ideas, design elements, and solution implementation for global team members (Harris, 2018). Many requirements and problems that companies encounter simply cannot be resolved in-house or at a single country location; yet, their solutions are critical SAM Advanced Management Journal - Volume 83 Edition 1 for these companies to launch a product, rectify issues that arise, or sustain their businesses (Harris, 2018). Moreover, international trade and collaboration have continued to evolve, resulting in companies receiving an increase of revenues from global operations (Thomas, Beilin, Jules, 8c Lynton, 2014). And along with these increased global opportunities and international trade, the development of products and services has expanded internationally and has become more globally interdependent. Thus, engineering teams are tasked to accomplish a variety of critical functions across geographical boundaries (Thomas et al., 2014). In as much, global virtual teams form and reform as their tasking progresses or as a response to events that unfold over the life cycle of a system or product (Clear, 2010). These engineering teams exist, in part, because technology now supports geographically distributed organizations, which allows them to effectively communicate to improve performance and outcome (Harris, 2018). The Challenges of Global Virtual Teams As a result of this virtual environment, managers of these teams are faced with efficiently providing effective resources along with guiding teams through the entire life-cycle process from determining requirements through finding and implementing solutions. These virtual teams rely on technology to execute engineering processes, collaborate in their activities, and to validate and share knowledge (Harris, 2018). Furthermore, these teams are often faced with conflict and disagreement within their ranks yet must still implement effective solutions (Lowry et al., 2015). The project manager must be prepared to plan and to coordinate effective resources to support the GVT. Thus, the need to manage the adoption and use of technology that supports the GVT to accomplish their tasking is critical for successful outcomes (Harris, 2018). Research has found, there are a number of cultural challenges that these teams face based on their diversity (Clear, 2010; Mejias, 1995; Thomas et al., 2014). These challenges include bridging their languages, cultures, time zones, experience, and so forth - through effective management. This in itself is not an easy task, as it requires a level of agility to orchestrate and bridge those differences (Thomas et al., 2014, p. 38). These groups are not always wholly successful in this endeavor, and consequently, their differences, be they cultural, linguistic, or logistical, can become problematic (Nisbett, 2003). Because these cross-cultural issues pose inherent problems in the interaction of GVTs, they also form an important component of this research. Inspite of the fact that these global teams may be spread out geographically, they are nonetheless expected to engage in collective behavior to solve problems quickly, coordinate product design, initiate start-up activities, brainstorm innovative solutions, and perform other nonroutine functions. Gains in technology that support these teams have increased the expectations of their performance and abilities to better manage interactions, share knowledge, and predict outcomes. One such Advanced Information Technology (AIT) designed to support these teams is collaboration software (Coleman 8c Levine, 2008). The capabilities contained within this type if software are available off the shelf, and they are also configurable. Among these AIT technologies is SharePoint enterprise software, which uses third-party applications, such as BPM CRM. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that people are as complex as the systems they adopt. As such, adding the variable of cultural differences among teams may compound tasking problems for virtual global groups (Clear, 2010; Mejias, 1995). This study examines the issues faced by organizations as they prepare to launch global teams using AIT. Companies and agencies that do business internationally may run into unique problems with political consequences. Harris (2018 p. 14) provided a poignant example: For nearly 2 decades, both the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and NASA have used the Russian RD-180 rocket motors for the heavy lift Atlas V rocket to resupply the International Space Station and for launching military satellites (Dilanian, 2016). In order to use this Russian rocket motor, the U.S. military contracts with the United Launch Alliance (a joint venture between defense contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin; Dilanian, 2016). Yet, this practice is particularly problematic given the adversarial nature of US/Russian relations (e.g., their opposing roles in Syria and the Ukraine). Thus, when a failure occurs, as it did during the 2016 Cygnus OA-6 International Space Station’s resupply (“By the Numbers: How Close Atlas V Came to Failure,” 2016), both countries put together tiger teams to perform failure analysis to determine the root cause. One can easily see that a failure of one country’s product may become exploitive political news overnight, regardless SAM Advanced M an ag em en t Journal - Volume 83 Edition 1 5 of sound engineering and business operations. Regardless of the situation, GVTs come together with specific tasks, goals, and objectives to achieve outcomes for unique problems; they accept difficult challenges and ultimately are able to achieve acceptable outcomes (Harris, 2018). Not surprisingly, putting together these teams and then supporting them is a problem global managers frequently face, especially when unanticipated critical issues arise that must be addressed within a short amount of time (Harris, 2018). In other words, the ability of a company operating globally to successfully operate across country and cultural boundaries is only viable if the company’s management is able to solve difficult and sometimes time-sensitive problems - whilst satisfying global stakeholders. Advanced Information Technology’s Role and New Social Norms The late 1950s and early 1960s saw the advent and proliferation of computers, which enhanced the scientific technology revolution (Harris, 2018). And as part of this information revolution, both routine and nonroutine activities were improved upon by the use of technology by teams (Geels & Kemp, 2007). Then in the early 1980s, technology advancements progressed once again, fully developing the information digital revolution, which continues today (Brynjolfsson 8c McAfee, 2014). What were once localized hardware platforms with dependent software-supporting engineering functions have given way to ubiquitous applications compatible with a variety of devices that support global group interaction (Brynjolfsson 8c McAfee, 2014). These group support technical capabilities have led to expanded and new social communication norms. In fact, a new form of sociology - digital sociology (Lupton, 2015) - has emerged to address human interaction with both computer-based group support tools and today’s social media. Thus, as technology has advanced, so, too, have methods of communication and team production (Harris, 2018). These phenomena have resulted in a shift in social interaction, bringing forth new concepts in sociology in-step with group support technologies that impact the way GVT’s communicate to accomplish their tasking: digital sociology (Lupton, 2015). Research Question The exploratory research question presented below 6 is designed to drive this systematic study, as will permit identification and examination of emerging themes and relationships, which will ultimately allow conclusive findings that will inform managers of GVTs. These findings will provide insight for both researchers and practitioners into the management of global virtual teams and the adoption of support technology. To that end, the following research question forms the context and drives this research: What specific issues do global problem-solving teams face when adopting advanced information technology (AIT) for collaborative support? Literature Review Whereas the adoption of technology by groups within singular cultures has been thoroughly researched for over 3 decades (Nikas & Poulymenakou, 2008, p. 1; Turban, Liang, & Wu, 2011, pp. 140141), literature on the adoption of technology to support global teams across cultures is not as prolific. Drawing from eight sources (see Appendix B), this literature review addresses major themes and issues with supportive evidence. The eight sources are conventionally identified in the reference section with a preceding *. First, theoretical underpinnings are considered, covering concepts on group interaction and structured adaptation of technology for multinational groups. The eight articles that support the major topics explored herein, which include both scholarly and “gray literature,” are then addressed. Theoretical Underpinnings for Group Interaction and Technology Adoption This researcher identified two primary theories upon which collective group behavior in the adoption of technology can be understood. These theories are Hofstede’s theory, which provides a model of cultural differentiation (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede, Van Deusen, Mueller, Sc Charles, 2002), and adaptive structural theory (AST; DeSanctis & Poole, 1994; DeSanctis et al., 2008; Gopal, Bostrom, & Chin, 1993). Hofstede’s theory: Model of cultural differentiation. Three of the selected studies (Davidson & fordan, 1998; Mejias, 1995; Paul, Samarah, Seetharaman, & Mykytyn, 2005) specifically based their conclusions on Hofstede’s (1980) seminal research on the cultural differences of global teams. In the early 1980s, Hofstede researched and identified the collective characteristics of countries and their cultures based on data gathering research from 53 countries SAM Advanced Management Journal - Volume 83 Edition 1 and 116,000 respondents. Hofstede discovered that there are five dimensions in cultural differentiation: Power-Distance, Uncertainty-Avoidance, Individualism-Collectivism, Masculinity-Femininity, and Time-Orientation. In Mejias’s study (1995), the author referred to four out of five of the dimensions described in Hofstede’s cultural differentiation model: “Cultural differentiation described four dimensions of national culture along which value systems may vary.... [H]is Model of Cultural Differentiation framework may be useful in hypothesizing specific predictions of cultural tendencies” (pp. 56-69). Davidson and Jordan (1998) and others have concurred with Mejias’s assertion that the dimensions of uncertainty avoidance and power distance have the greatest influence in relating cultural aspects of interdependent groups operating across cultural boundaries. However, these dimensions also represent the underlying characteristics of individualism or collectivism, in varying degrees, for each of Hofstede’s five dimensions (See Figure 1). Notably, Paul et al. (2005. p. 190) viewed the fifth dimension of individualism/collectivism as a dominating aspect across the power distance and uncertainty-avoidance scheme. Here, Mejias (1995, pp. 59, 61) provides a apt description of both power distance and uncertaintyavoidance: Power Distance describes the relationship and relative distance between a supervisor and a subordinate ... the extent to which a particular national culture accepts and recognizes the unequal distribution of power and influence in institutions and organizations. Countries that score high on power distance appear to emphasize autocratic or paternalistic, bossemployee relations. In these countries the powerful have more privileges over others.... Countries scoring low on Power Distance favor participative management relations and prefer the use of “equal rights” and legitimate power over the use of coercive or referent power. During group decision making, higher status individuals are more likely to dominate the group discussion and influence group outcomes more than low status individuals. Uncertainty-avoidance expresses the extent to which members of a particular national culture feel uncomfortable or threatened by uncertain or unknown outcomes (Hofstede, 1980, 1991). Countries that scored high on the Uncertainty Avoidance dimension tended to have a low tolerance for uncertainty (expressed by higher levels of anxiety) and a greater need for formal rules. Additionally, countries with F ig u r e 1 . R e la t io n s h ip B e t w e e n U n v e r t a in t y A v o id a n c e a n d P o w e r D is ta n c e Uncertainty Avoidance Low High Family Model - clannish Pyramid Model - fiefdom Countries: Southeast Asia, Singapore, Hong Kong, India, Philippines Countries: Latin America, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Yugoslavia Market Model - structure Machine Model - bureaucracy Countries: Anglo/Scandinavia, United States, Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, United Kingdom Countries: Germanic, Israel, Austria ua j c as -w 5 s- 5> £ o CL SAM Advanced Management Journal - Volume 83 Edition 1 7 strong (high) Uncertainty Avoidance scores also had less tolerance for people or groups with deviant ideas or behavior and were more likely to resist innovative ideas (Hofstede; 1980, 1991). Countries with weak or low Uncertainty Avoidance scores were inclined to take more risks and were more likely to tolerate deviant behavior and innovative ideas when making group decisions (Hofstede; 1980, 1991). Figure 1 depicts the relationships between the variables of power distance and uncertainty-avoidance and the countries whose cultures align with each. In sum, Hofstede’s theory is paramount in anticipating cultural issues associated with multinational teams as they come together to work.Figure 1. Hofstede’s Regional/Countries Matrix of Cultural Differentiation (Mejias, 1995, p. 66; Davidson & Jordan, 1998, p .41). Adaptive structuration theory (AST). Giddens’s (1984) original structuration work unified an approach to social organization theory, resulting in a holistic view of people acting together to achieve common goals. In doing so, Giddens shifted the focus from the individual to groups of actors who are knowledgeable about the systems they produce and reproduce (Harris, 2016, p. 3). Adaptive structuration theory (AST) expands upon Giddens’s theory that by incorporating AIT as a component of group activities (as proposed by researchers, including Gopal et al., 1993, and DeSanctis et al. 1994; 2008, p. 552), a unified AST would result. Harris’ (2016, p. 7) earlier research described the relationships of groups and technology from an AST perspective, finding: AST posits that the impacts of AIT “on group and organization processes and outcomes depend on the structures incorporated in the technology and on the structures that emerge as users attempt to adapt the technology to the tasks at hand” (Poole, 2013, p. 22). DeSanctis and Poole’s (1994) foundational description of AST first defines a system as an observable pattern of relationships among actors as part of a group. Structures are the rules and resources that members employ in their activities and interactions that give the system its pattern. As members develop rules and resources from their tasks, norms, and AIT, they enact and sustain structures to make them part of an ongoing organization of a system. In other words, groups produce and reproduce rules and resources as they interact to accomplish their tasking. As a result, AST posits the effects of AIT on group processes and outcomes depend on the 8 structures incorporated within technology (structural potential) and the emergent (adaptive) structures that form as members interact with the technology and themselves over time (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994, pp. 22-23). DeSanctis and Poole (1994) also describes how AST works by identifying the two AIT structural elements: spirit and features. Spirit being the general intent with regards to values and goals of the specific rules. Capabilities and usage rules make up structural features of the technology... The result being a novel structural ensemble tailored to the group’s needs... and interactions (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994, pp. 22-23). Harris (2016) also found that the components of structural adaptations from the interactions of group members with regard to appropriated AIT (depicted in Figure 2) are segregated by input-process-output functions. These elements (changing rules, resources, group/technology products, and tasking environment) dynamically come together during social interaction (see center of Figure 2), appropriating and applying ongoing influences of new and emerging structures. Literature from four of the eight studies reinforces the applicability of AST for this research. For example, Watson (1994, pp. 47-48) noted that AST makes an important distinction ... Purchase answer to see full attachment