3|... 9". u...-
1. is... s..- r
5. I.
s t

1" 1—!tlL\K‘
.x! .
blanks». ....
‘ $2.5 .
‘ .
gunman. , .
« 3...

but:

.mqwfim . . and: g

55...:

. 3"?

Gala-.avi’uill1

:Ltr < .I .158...
sulfufihauru‘nico.‘
.321: .

.6“

5.3.2. . 1 . “sf-HP...

. . . .1: 2... t

Ii . , ‘ .11 h

J‘. {.132flgh. Lu. '99!
n:l!‘JflflI-.tfll.iflxl . :)

(}".\

K 7:3,... 59
a, :‘xxit
0? ‘I 5.

I‘d: .. .1

 

S. (.
AF’.V..-vr.0r
it‘ll I ‘\ .

 

THEStS

.:

£1060

lllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

3 1293 02048 3909

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
GLOBALLY DISPERSED TEAMS

presented by

Betty Jo Barrett

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein Labor and Industrial
Relations

 

 

EM“ 4%

MajJr profesfl

Date August 23, 2000

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

. LIBRARY r
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

‘ - —‘_ 'vgfi‘ _ q— ___r

‘V-‘a;

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

JUit 91 $3002.?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11/00 chlRG/DauOmpBS—p. 14

 

FACTORS

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PERFORMANCE EFFECTIVENESS
OF GLOBALLY DISPERSED TEAMS

By

Betty Jo Barrett

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations

2000

FACTORS NU
()2

la the absence 0t .

 

:ee'tug ansuers about glr
il'TrBtiDihS dense-d for e
\letrrath. and Gladstem.

rim need to haxe et‘te

reports such as reuardx
tort 0t dispersed teams

£5013 whether other tact

\ tag the altematit e t.

I 9 g .
m I}pe and nature

exactronous nature at
thith'e

rams and team I
i re ”
i3mpertorrnattce and

ill the core of ll‘

j"Steed
teams “'0 {k} n

Sf‘e“‘3 .
~ PTOHdes the q.
U

Gimme
0f 6 faClttrS .
.zmriilo Q; '
qEillfic
s ant I"
{rd

ABSTRACT

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PERFORMANCE EFFECTIVENESS
OF GLOBALLY DISPERSED TEAMS

By

Betty J o Barrett

In the absence of an accepted framework. practitioners as well as academics
seeking answers about globally dispersed team performance have relied on the
frameworks devised for collocated teams by scholars such as Hackman, Cohen,
McGrath, and Gladstein. The value of this existing work is clear and unquestioned.
Teams need to have effective leadership, clear goals. ample resources, and structural
supports such as rewards and training. Leaders and managers helping to facilitate the
work of dispersed teams must provide such essentials. However, questions remain
about whether other factors must be considered when discussing dispersed teams.
Among the alternative factors that offer additional information about dispersed teams
are the type and nature of communications used by the team, the synchronous or
asynchronous nature of the team’s interactions, the organizational structures within
which teams and team members are embedded, the nature and impact of diversity on
team performance, and the effects of geographic dispersion.

At the core of this study are interviews and observations of a group of
dispersed teams working on the same global initiative. A case study combined with
surveys provides the quantitative and qualitative data that offer a multifaceted view
of some of the factors vital to dispersed team effectiveness. Regression analyses

point to significant relationships between the diversity of team members, their

mulgdge and ShlliS
Lizerpreted from a J1
identities a number t‘
ct‘tersit}; and GCCOUIT

Dispersed tea:
are great dilemma:
reg-tenable for. and ‘
team and a potentzall

std} offers a intrudt

support further resea'

knowledge and skills and performance effectiveness. Although it must be
interpreted from a dispersed perspective, Hackman’s model of group effectiveness
identifies a number of contributing factors: goal clarity, leadership. rewards.
diversity, and accountability.

Dispersed teams face a complex web of organizational relationships that
cause great dilemmas for team members and leaders. Team members are primarily
responsible for, and work in. a home location. They must then move to the global
team and a potentially different set of interests, allegiances, and relationships. This
study offers a introduction to these issues and attempts to add to a theoretical base to

support further research on dispersed teams.

Ctttrghr by

BETTY JO BARR
212-20

Copyright by
BETTY JO BARRETT
2000

To my mother. \lar}

impor

To my mother, Mary Strickland Barrett Russell, whose love and support were so

important and whose example showed me the way

llhen one has I'll?
titiicult to feel exuherarr
tho nere essential to lit:
my mother. Mary Barret
truth ionger and darker
me then I was first intr
iahrand Industrial Re}
aiil alnays be grateful t
hehinson. Dr. Brian Pt
inaluahle Scholarl) exp.

M} education \\(
Were the Japan Protect:
Simon Chow. ChCN (r

it. Michael Moore. Bi

strand. ket'tn Smith

echo r~
“ledge all that I it

Protects such as
time efforts bv a
U n‘
L‘in“a w
- 4» lhoods. Deb

Ill}

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

When one has finally come to this moment in the doctoral process. it is
difficult to feel exuberant but it is not difficult to feel grateful to the many people
who were essential to the completion of this task. Without the support and love of
my mother, Mary Barrett Russell, and my brother, Bill Barrett, it would have been a
much longer and darker road. Thanks to my chairman, Dr. Daniel Kruger who told
me when I was first introduced to him that he was my ‘steward’ in the School of
Labor and Industrial Relations. I don’t think he knew how true that would be. I
will always be grateful to the other members of my committee. Dr. Benjamin
Wolkinson, Dr. Brian Pentland, Dr. Kevin Ford. and Dr. Janice Klein who provided
invaluable scholarly expertise and support.

My education would not have been as meaningful without those people who
were the Japan Project: Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Michio Nitta. Nejib Belhedi,
Simon Chow, Cheryl Coutchie, Takashi Inaba, Iwao Ishino, Seepa Lee, Wen-Jeng
Lin, Michael Moore, Bill Mothersell. Jennifer Palthe, Stacia Rabine, Shobha
Ramanand, Kevin Smith, Mark Strolle, and Art Wheaton. It isn’t possible to
acknowledge all that I learned as we worked together.

Projects such as this dissertation are never personal achievements as much as
collective efforts by a number of exceptional people. Thanks and thanks again to

Lynne Woods. Deb Bittner, Karen Markel. Jannifer Gregory, Linda Tillman, Liz

vi

Dickinson. John Sch\\e:'
Thanks to all the
Sit friends. and suppor‘

usl and still be smiling

 

 

Dickinson, John Schweitzer, and Victoria Hoelzer-Maddox.
Thanks to all the many other friends, colleagues. sisters, coworkers. Mackerel
Sky friends, and supporters who helped make it possible for me to complete this

task and still be smiling.

vii

an or TABLES
usr or FIGL'RES

CHAPTER 1 lXTRl

Giobal Teams: \l
The Opportunitie
Team Research a
lntroduetion to It
Resources Cited

CRAPTER 2 LlTl

Framing the lssu
Group Desi;
Organization
Group Syner

Beyond Hackma:

Mediated Comm

fleets of Orgai
Accountabili
Rewards .
Dit'ersity .

. Effectivenes:

unman- . . . .
Resottrces Cited

QihPTER 3 ME]

I‘liatheses .

0

“beers .

L313 Collection ;

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................... xii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .............................. 1
Global Teams: What Are They and Why Are They Important ....... l
The Opportunities and Challenges of Global Teams .............. 4
Team Research and Theoretical Foundations ................... 8
Introduction to this Study of a Global Team .................... 10
Resources Cited ....................................... 13
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................ 16
Framing the Issue in the Teams Literature ..................... 18
Group Design ...................................... 21
Organizational Context ................................ 21

Group Synergy ..................................... 22
Beyond Hackman: Teams Collocated and Virtual ................ 23
Mediated Communications ................................ 28
Aspects of Organizational Context .......................... 33
Accountability ...................................... 35
Rewards .......................................... 37
Diversity ......................................... 4O
Effectiveness ....................................... 46
Summary ............................................ 50
Resources Cited ....................................... 51
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ............................. 58
Hypotheses ........................................... 61
Subjects ............................................. 70
Data Collection and Instrumentation ......................... 75
Language and Cross-Cultural Research ....................... 88
Data Analysis ......................................... 89
Resources Cited ....................................... 93

viii

ClitPTER 4 C ASl
LOC.

Perspective on th
Three Factors At
lndustr} Rest
Product Strat
Organization;
leadership 01.111
Strategic Alignm
A Brief Ox ervicx
The Plan
The lmpleme
Getting Orie:
A Tutorial on lb:
The L091] Vimkj
The Teehnie;
Altec in Chi}
Markham in
North Penn f
[ruled 51:11
The Teams . .
The Printers
The S.\ll) p;
The DCSign
The “Me 8
The C ore Te
onelusion . _ .
IndUSIr‘y (it.
changes in l
311ch in i
iiSOUICes Cllcd

RCSuItS .

FIX?

Comm unlCar
3130th 565
- unimag-
Nukes Cited

CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDY: GLOBALLY APPLIED STRATEGY AND

LOCALLY EXERCISED EXPERTISE .............. 98
Perspective on the Global Competitive Environment .............. 101
Three Factors Affecting C0py Exactly ........................ 101
Industry Restructuring ................................ 101
Product Strategies ................................... 102
Organizational Change and Restructuring ................... 103
Leadership Change ..................................... 105
Strategic Alignment ..................................... 107
A Brief Overview: The Copy Exactly Initiative ................. 110
The Plan ......................................... 110
The Implementation .................................. 112
Getting Oriented .................................... 118
A Tutorial on the Manufacture of Printed Circuit Boards ........... 120
The Local View: The Plants ............................... 122
The Technical Center in Dearborn. Michigan, United States ...... 123
Altec in Chihuahua, Mexico ............................ 125
Markham in Markham, Ontario, Canada .................... 127
North Penn Electronics Facility in Lansdale. Pennsylvania.
United States ..................................... 128
The Teams ........................................... 130
The Printers/Ovens Team .............................. 131
The SMD Placement Team ............................. 135
The Design Rules Team ............................... 140
The Wave/Selective Solder Team ........................ 146
The Core Team ..................................... 152
Conclusion ........................................... 1 57
Industry Changes .................................... 158
Changes in Organizational Structure ...................... 159
Changes in Leadership ................................ 161
Resources Cited ....................................... 163
CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS .................................. 165
Results .............................................. 166
Communication ..................................... 1 72
Hypotheses ........................................ 1 73
Summary ......................................... 186
Resources Cited ....................................... 188
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ............. 190
The Local versus Global Dilemma .......................... 192
The Paradox of Rewards ................................. 194
Strategic Alignment Issues ................................ 196

ix

Cross-Functional 'l
Dispersed Teams
Knowledge C rearit'
limitations and At
Resources C itcd

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Com
Appendix B: Prim.
Appendix C: Inter‘
Appendix D: Parti

Cross-Functional Teams. Matrix Teams. and Globally

Dispersed Teams ..................................... 197
Knowledge Creation and Management Issues ................... 198
Limitations and Additional Implications for Future Research ........ 201
Resources Cited ....................................... 204

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Communication and Resources ................... 207
Appendix B: Primary Survey Document ...................... 208
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ............................ 222
223

Appendix D: Participant Information Form ....................

Table :-1 Vin”
and EX.

Table 3-3 I)?“ ‘
Dix‘crsil

Table 3-3 Cwill“:
-hle 4-1 COmI‘Ol

, Vistcor‘.

Iaale 5-1 Resourc

:hIa - D

1-... :-- Resoure
Dex iatit

w - ~

.- ‘ \-\ .

a e - - Destrtp

Ia't‘ '

we 3-4 Ret'rexs

Tit-13 ' “

._, g x.

- 3 Post III

of Van

Tfli

'3le

(D
«7/.
0‘
x
(L
l '3
V

Table 2-1

Table 2-2

Table 2-3

Table 4-1

Table 4-2

Table 5-1

Table 5-2

Table 5-3

Table 5-4

Table 5-5

Table 5-6

LIST OF TABLES

Virtual Teams: Potential Temporal and Spatial Combinations
and Examples ...................................

Types of Teams with the Dimension of Organizational
Diversity ......................................

Comparison of Diversity Characteristics ................
Component Units of Copy Exactly Initiative .............
Visteon Locations Included in the Study. ...............
Resources Survey: Average Means—Responses by Group . . . .

Resources Survey: Average Means and Standard
Deviations—-—Resources by Location ...................

Descriptive Statistics, Correlations. and Reliabilities ........
Regression Results ...............................

Post Hoc Analysis Results of Regression (Backwards Mode
of Variable Removal) .............................

Regression Results: Stepwise Entry Method ..............

xi

26

27

43

113

123

170

171

174

176

178

179

(irotip
PTUI‘W
CUP}

Gencr;

Cum

Figure 2-1
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 4-1

Figure 4-2

LIST OF FIGURES

Group Effectiveness Model .......................
Proposed Model of Team Performance Effectiveness .....
Copy Exactly Hierarchy ..........................
General Placement Machine Commonization Matrix ......

Copy Exactly Hierarchy Gap ......................

xii

19

60

72

110

115

Global Teams: \\ hat

In business toda.
eten‘ resource to solx e
efeetite ways to fit-gm
assignments. The col’..:‘
Ltcx‘ledge that creates
Ctupaties must optimt;
'e-n ‘

b

_..p:e are located. (111‘

companies are increasin.

Straps 11997). define a

 

Geographically a

ERIE? ' - '
I

Eyixfllt'e I -
- ~ oca .
IIOIIS‘ 2’ }

HI ‘ e CHI;
r ' .
‘ e Olgdntlatj
V? 01:35

112311011 [0 hCIp

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Global Teams: What Are They and Why Are They Important?

In business today, companies are continually challenged to effectively use
every resource to solve complex problems. Teams may become one of the most
effective ways to focus the resources of employees on important tasks and
assignments. The collaborative strength of teams provides a rich and diverse base of
knowledge that creates value as it develops solutions for the firm. Transnational
companies must optimize the time and effort of their workforce no matter where the
people are located. Globally dispersed or virtual teams are one of the solutions that
companies are increasingly choosing. In their book, Virtual Teams. Lipnack and
Stamps (1997), define a dispersed or virtual team “as a group of people who interact
through interdependent tasks guided by common purpose. . . across space, time, and
organizational boundaries with links strengthened by webs of communication
technologies.”

Geographically dispersed teams pose fundamental problems: 1) how to foster
teamwork while also maintaining the advantages of keeping team members in their
respective locations; 2) how to effectively integrate the products of such team work
With the entire organization; and 3) how to create a supportive environment within

the organization to help these global teams perform effectively. This study will

IDCUS 011 IIIE Illllt’f 0i
cmironment such a:
ttrmtnowledge. 903
global team perform.

Research on t
effectiveness and the
Harman; Sundstroir
Shea and Guam: (in
pretided in depth as
Ol‘work groups or {C
Shea and Guzzo 19x
tzditiortal COIIOCJt-cd
Since we do nor knn
Edil‘ldken [0 InVCSIt

Traditional as

73'??- ~
tad structure. (It‘d

true:
\ sSUfioundinu d'

e». . .
aratteristics F tr
. k ‘

focus on the latter of these problems. How do elements of the organizational
environment, such as accountability, reward structures, diversity, team relationship
with knowledge, goal clarity, and the availability of resources. support or hinder
global team performance effectiveness?

Research on teams has investigated many aspects of team performance
effectiveness and the factors that affect it. The important work of scholars such as
Hackman; Sundstrom, DeMeuse, and Futrell; Kolodny and Kiggundu; McGrath;
Shea and Guzzo; Goodman, Ravlin. and Schminke; and Cohen and Baily have all
provided in depth assessments of the factors that enhance or hinder the performance
of work groups or teams (Hackman 1987; Sundstrom et a1. 1990; McGrath 1964:
Shea and Guzzo 1987; Cohen and Bailey 1997). This body of work deals with
traditional collocated teams in which the members are all located in one place.
Since we do not know how well these findings may apply, new research must be
undertaken to investigate dispersed teams.

Traditional assumptions about organizational dynamics such as accountability,
reward structure, and measures of productivity must be revisited to address the
issues surrounding dispersed teams. Globally dispersed teams have unique
characteristics. For example, they have a much greater reliance on the use of
mediated communications such as electronic communication methods,
teleconferences, or videoconferences. Diversity among the members of these teams
inherently offers greater opportunity for complexity because the team members live
and work in different ethnic cultures and may well work in organizations or
organizational units with very different organizational cultures. Geographic
dispersion also potentially creates great complexity in boundary-crossing and lines of

2

control. Team mem'
potential to create \c
the organizations.

This dissertat'
thecoIIocated teams
expands the current
and differentiate thei
here has been little
examine the existing
$33531 Icams and at:
effectiveness of tear
CITSTJC‘I‘CIF to the

Research on
end more commute
“if-HI teams are I“

the .3 .
marketplaces. t1-

35:“.
Products to 1hr

Eor rt.

“1038

control. Team members dispersed throughout the organization’s units also have the
potential to create valuable knowledge and diffuse this knowledge widely throughout
the organizations.

This dissertation is about globally dispersed teams and how they differ from
the collocated teams that have been the more dominant object of study to date. It
expands the current research that is attempting to define globally dispersed teams
and differentiate them from the more commonly studied collocated team. To date
there has been little research done on the nature of global teams. This study will
examine the existing team literature as well as the emerging work on dispersed or
global teams and attempt to discover what impact geographical dispersion has on the
effectiveness of teams and whether existing theories of effectiveness can be applied
constructively to these groups.

Research on globally dispersed teams is increasingly important today as more
and more companies expand to become transnational entities. Sproull says that
“virtual teams are bound to become more prevalent because of the global nature of
the marketplaces, the need to get projects done as quickly as possible in order to get
new products to those global markets, and the necessity of tapping the best brains
for those projects no matter where those brains may be” (Geber 1995). Townsend,
DeMarie, and Hendrickson (1996) agree that virtual teams are a powerful form of
work organization that allows “people to work together who might not otherwise be
available to work together” (122). In addition they believe that virtual teams
enhance the availability of resources from outside the organization while
empowering those teams to work collaboratively. “Virtual teams involved in
complex development projects, for example, will capitalize on their ability to access

3

3‘

abroader range “I
The role of these ted
process 5. but with t?
their VIIIULII construe
Experts and I:
:eams are invaluable
the beauty about glt
Tony Barnes. direeto
England. Barnes. \x.
Japan. believes that 3
Barres goes on to ex
III I‘VOIII organizat I n n
Global teamg~
“ms that are
3PPT03CI1 the
OI PEG-tile pr

Customers
\ar} 1an

I1:

Pent"
tUnctions I

ruIHheir cou
“Ork‘ GI 0:3
people “Ito

“IIII PEOple I

a broader range of expertise and to more easily link to diverse functional resources.
The role of these teams will be to manage and execute traditional organizational
processes, but with the advantage of resources and expertise unavailable save for
their virtual construction” (26).

Experts and human resource professionals are finding that globally dispersed
teams are invaluable tools in a rapidly changing competitive environment. In fact.
“the beauty about global teams is that they’re reaching for the next stage,” says
Tony Barnes, director of human resources development at the Japan Center in
England. Barnes, who worked for decades with Edward Deming on team process in
Japan, believes that global teams are the next wave of corporate development.
Barnes goes on to express strongly what he feels is the importance of this new form
of work organization:

Global teams address certain problems and affect the bottom line in

ways that are fundamentally different from the ways individuals

approach the same situation. They maximize expertise from a variety

of people, provide companies a more accurate picture of international

customers’ needs, and profit by the synergy necessary to unify the

varying perspectives of different cultures and different business

functions. I think corporations, as we’ve known them, have actually

run their course and are beginning to break into autonomous business

units, so the decisions are in the hands of the people carrying out the

work. Global teams are one way of cross-pollinating—they move

people who are successful in one branch of the organization to work

with people in another country and another branch of the organization.

In these situations people develop themselves as well as help develop

others. It’s a program of both learning and teaching that enhances the

ability and taps into the creativity of all people in an organization

(Solomon 1995: 49—50).

The Opportunities and Challenges of Global Teams
Snell, Snow, Davidson and Hambrick (1998) report that when transnational

teams are managed effectively they can “help firms achieve the autonomy and

4

flexibility needed 10 5
the etliciencies afford
factor because the tea
MOVBIIOIIS from cacl
abroughout the organi
tearr. .embers at tltei
tirtual team creates ti
teams may also requr
location enjoy as c011
facilitate organization
tbeknou'ledge create.
mmnment that fog,
reason that underlie

Bhalla (100x.
practices reliant 0n c

{haul
A ulé‘ng

~ em'lf'Onment

.. earns to entities 0
create
:1. hey state t

flexibility needed to serve a variety of customers in different regions while obtaining
the efficiencies afforded by an integrated organization” (147). This is an important
factor because the team offers a structure that connects “the best ideas and
innovations from each part of the company and uses them in ways that add value
throughout the organization (147). Local responsiveness created by the presence of
team members at their home locations is a key element of the global impact that a
virtual team creates for a firm. This boundary-crossing characteristic of virtual
teams may also require adjustments in the degree of autonomy that people at each
location enjoy as collaboration increases (Klein 1991). Globally dispersed teams
facilitate organizational learning when structures are in place to diffuse and integrate
the knowledge created within such a team. Virtual teams also may provide an
environment that fosters dialogue vital to the information sharing and knowledge
creation that underlies organizational learning (Snell et a]. 1998: 153).

Bhalla (1998) points out that “Organizations worldwide are rapidly adopting
practices reliant on coordinating efforts in a geographically distributed. boundary-
crossing environment.” Ancona and Caldwell (1992) have discussed the relationship
of teams to entities outside the team boundaries with which interdependency is
created. They state that since the team is dependent on these external entities to
complete team tasks, research must also focus on these relationships. The boundary-
crossing nature of dispersed teams is more complex than that of traditional co-
located teams. Not only are these teams frequently ad hoc entities but their
members come from work groups in separate facilities. Effectively managing such
boundary-crossing issues may well be one of the challenges for organizations in the

future.

Another challe
till be creating and 1'
teams to create the \\
irteraction. The fully
mediated communica‘.
element in the pater:
virtual team;
embers” prrr
electronic eon
mail and com'
and Hendrick>
Communicatit
in» ' , .
,‘t..anly meet ldce-t
lilf‘hon r

ccnterencina. In em
~ k

mm“ {0 achiey‘e

Another challenge for organizations as they set up globally dispersed teams
will be creating and maintaining an electronic communication network that allows
teams to create the working relationships necessary to build effective team
interaction. The following definition of a virtual team indicates that the use of
mediated communication is seen by some researchers and practitioners as a critical
element in the performance of dispersed or virtual teams.

virtual team: A virtual team is characterized by the fact that its

members’ primary interaction is through some combination of

electronic communication systems, such as telephone, fax machine, e-

mail and computer-based video conferencing (Townsend, DeMarie,

and Hendrickson 1996: 124).

Communication is critical to the performance of these teams. They do not
primarily meet face-to-face and therefore must build working relationships over the
telephone, through email or groupware messages. or through the use of video
conferencing. In each case. the direct contact so vital to meaning and clarity is
difficult to achieve. Team members may share a working language and, of course.
telephone, send faxes, or email to one another but simultaneous communication in
the work place may prove impossible when there is a 13—hour time difference. It is
increasingly rare for today’s workers to exchange information using conventional
mail services because it takes too long. Reliance on mediated communication rather
than face-to-meetings is another key element of globally dispersed teams. Team
building and team work by people separated geographically and/or by time zones is

not yet a perfected skill (Hackman 1990; Hollingshead and McGrath 1995; Lipnack

and Stamps 1997).

Diversity is an
pret'idc for an organil.
team members will be
lhis ditersity of scttiri.
area but it may be that
alter. Global dispersit
facet by team builders
example. scheduling n“;

Beyond geograr
‘1ka“an maple 3R.
mother facet of diyers:
expertise that is t’requc:
real Puzzle for all to 3y.

Hofstede t 1995 l

 

arr-7 av" ‘

cannons to tunction
033' ' 2

elllllililon deyelops p

Cl)"
.larits such as MCDCII

Diversity is another of the unique challenges that global or virtual teams
provide for an organization as well as a researcher (Jackson 1991). For example.
team members will be very diverse or will be working in settings that are diverse.
This diversity of setting may be as minor as from one town to another in the same
area but it may be that team members live and work around the world from each
other. Global dispersion can add the complication of time zones to the challenges
faced by team builders. When team members are in Japan and the United States for
example, scheduling meetings at reasonable times for both groups is difficult.

Beyond geographic and time diversity. a much more complicated variation
arises when people are of different sexes. races, or nationalities. Add to this yet
another facet of diversity. namely the diversity or commonality of knowledge and
expertise that is frequently featured in this group. and the situation can provide a
real puzzle for all to solve.

Hofstede (1997) says that common practice is what allows transnational or-
ganizations to function effectively in a multicultural geographic environment. The
organization develops practices that it diffuses to all its members. Practitioner con-
sultants such as McDermott, Brawley. and Waite advise the “world class teams . . .
need to create their own ‘culture,’ that is a set of values and operating agreements
that will accommodate and bring out the best in each of their team members”
(McDermott et a1. 1998: 124). Milliken and Martins (1996) describe the impact of
the diversity of group composition on organizational outcomes as the result of
common patterns in “cognitive, communication, and symbolic processes” (402).
Taking this one step further, researchers such as Jackson, May. and Whitney (1995)
and Pelled, Eisenhardt, and Xin (1999) are categorizing aspects of diversity and

7

ruling distinctions a:-
and iohrelatedness. l

unique facet of study

Team Research and '

\thile the natur
actitities are complfl
es‘ablished. multidisci;
performance effectit er.
primary framework. 1:
hhich represents the ti

Collocated tean:

 

renewed by McGrath 1

wall 1. Performance e

retre-

VS of that literatur

1.99:). Although man

as tater Hackman. a r

:53 ecological approaci
uaaagetnent \y'ork 0H
Rat“
um (19 7 -
8,). and the

1

HT

an

871 ' '
,. Guen the con

or \tork QrOUp [1

tr? .
“-‘W’to
be n '

that will h

Winkle]
M V .
' ma} be foL

making distinctions about the impact of these elements based on their observability
and job-relatedness. Diversity in globally dispersed teams may well prove to be a

unique facet of study.

Team Research and Theoretical Foundations

While the nature of globally dispersed teams and the issues surrounding their
activities are complex and have not yet been widely studied, there is a well-
established, multidisciplinary body of research on collocated teams and team
performance effectiveness. This study relies on this body of work to provide its
primary framework. In particular, the study has relied on Hackman’s work (1987),
which represents the theoretical starting point for this study of teams.

Collocated teams have been the object of many studies. which have then been
reviewed by McGrath (McGrath and Altman 1966; McGrath 1984) and Bettenhausen
(1991). Performance effectiveness studies have also been extensive as evidenced by
reviews of that literature by Guzzo and Dickson (1996) and by Cohen and Bailey
(1997). Although many of these studies have antecedents in the work of McGrath
and later Hackman, a number of other theoretical approaches have been developed:
the ecological approach of Sundstrom, DeMeuse, and F utrell (1990); the boundary
management work of Gladstein (1984); self-regulating work groups of Pearce and
Ravlin (1987); and the human resource/interdependence model of Shea and Guzzo
(1987). Given the complexity surrounding globally dispersed teams, the dominant
team or work group theories may not be adequate. Additional sources of
information that will help in understanding the dispersed team phenomenon more
completely may be found in other theoretical perspectives.

8

One emerging
tone on Virtual or gltt
literature. Practitioner-
atd Wallace 1998; l-‘ir-
Brittle}; and \Vaite l~
create a body of exp-er
intimation specific tr

existing team literature

 

eaehday. This study
rinual teams and the r
Work by Ian at

ages body of researt

that international stuc

aeatated communieat

are ~ "
members of a global

research suggests th a‘

“'ml‘lete their share ‘
\.

Egan
. «n ‘
xx cup relationslt'

3?
to

edit and
. a s
cross th

tiara

[Off-1(-
~ on mediated

fEzcill‘tar'
m0 th
e e dev
e

Deni”,
\ uh} .
dance.

One emerging source of empirical information is the current research being
done on virtual or globally dispersed teams. It is a nascent but growing body of
literature. Practitioners and those who are offering advice to practitioners (Crandell
and Wallace 1998; Fisher and Fisher 1998; Lipnack and Stamps 1997; McDermott.
Brawley, and Waite 1998; O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen 1994) have begun to
create a body of experientially rich work. Here one finds much of the available
information specific to virtual teams. These experts have also drawn from the
existing team literature in their work as they try to unravel the problems they see
each day. This study has been informed by both the empirical work done to date on
virtual teams and the practitioner literature that reports activity in the field.

Work by Jarvanpaa (1995). Leidner (1997), and Knoll (1998) is. perhaps, the
largest body of research done to date on virtual teams. Using controlled experiments
with international student participation, these studies have looked at the use of
mediated communication methods and the creation of trust in relationships among
members of a global team (Knoll and Jarvenpaa 1997; Jarvenaa et al. 1998). This
research suggests that members of global teams form ‘swift’ trust in order to
complete their shared tasks. This ‘swift’ trust reflects the fragile nature of the
intragroup relationships on these teams that are formed as needed, for the duration of
a task, and across the cultural boundaries of the group members. The teams in these
studies were true virtual teams who had no opportunity to meet face-to-face and had
to rely on mediated communication to complete their tasks. The research is aimed at
facilitating the development of trust seen by the researchers as essential for team

performance.

Introduction to this
In this study. I
dereloped by the elee
parts supply units of
initiative was to com
seren plants in the d
proprietary project o
goal to replicate eye
The people i‘.
tmeenantcal. electrit
Jet the main Elc
C
tum; - , . -
‘Cd on specrtte
dsijt‘ '
”én‘ hne Conl‘tur
board .
prOdUCIIQn.

Boards}. Team I

Introduction to this Study of a Global Team

In this study, the main object of study is the Copy Exactly Initiative
developed by the electronics division of Visteon Corporation (the former internal
parts supply units of a large Midwestern automobile maker). The goal of the
initiative was to commonize manufacturing processes and equipment across the
seven plants in the division. The Copy Exactly Initiative was modeled on a
proprietary project of a well-known computer chip manufacturer, which had as its
goal to replicate everything about the fabrication process of semiconductors.

The people in the Copy Exactly Initiative were primarily engineers
(mechanical, electrical, and industrial specialties) working in the worldwide plants
and at the main Electronics Technical Headquarters. They were divided into ‘teams’
focused on specific areas of electronics manufacturing: soldering, reflow, board
design, line configuration, etc. (for a more complete explanation of printed circuit
board production, see Chapter 4: “A Tutorial on the Manufacture of Printed Circuit
Boards”). Team members work in eight locations globally dispersed in seven
countries. Their meetings take place most frequently (weekly or biweekly) through
telephone conferences. Three to four times a year they meet face-to-facc with the
meeting place rotating around the different plant sites.

Each team was composed of a representative from each plant and people
from the headquarters site as well as a coach. The coaches were members of a Core
Team Group, who monitored progress and set midterm goals for the entire group.
In addition, executives, plant managers, and supervisors were involved in peripheral

bodies in the project such as the Management Review Committee.

10

This gm”
Thgy were \61'}' l
to interact. CICJIC
crossing issues.
had: qualitatiye a
project as “cell as
been inten'ieyyed.
selected teams.

Data \\ as .
paticipants \\ ere
availability of res
indiyidual use or‘

1 9
adult

ion. the entir

asked to complete

teamwork. comm L

Paticipants could

filial Instruments]
Through ob
heeded '

~ PTQIECI
What a
and 303

cams”
0-“ Cltt
HQIUre ()

This group illustrates the opportunities and challenges mentioned above.
They were very diverse across most categories, used mediated communication modes
to interact, created a shared base of knowledge, and were confronted with boundary-
crossing issues. The investigation of this complex set of phenomena will utilize
both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Members of the virtual team
project as well as managers and others whose work is related to the project have
been interviewed. Face-to-face meetings have been observed for each of five
selected teams.

Data was also gathered using survey instruments. During each interview,
participants were asked to complete short questionnaires on how they perceived the
availability of resources for the team and how they judged the frequency of their
individual use of various communication modes in their work with the team. In
addition, the entire team and the non-team members who were interviewed were
asked to complete a survey on their perceptions of accountability, rewards,
teamwork, community of practice perceptions, and team performance effectiveness.
Participants could respond to the survey via email or they could log on to a website
and their responses were delivered via email (see Appendices C and D for copies of
actual instruments).

Through observation, interview, archival research, and other methods as
needed, the project has investigated topics such as:

- What aspects of the work environment such as rewards, accountability,
and goal clarity are most important to successful performance in dispersed
teams? Are accountability and performance effectiveness linked?

- How does the availability of resources affect a global team and has the

nature of the essential resources such as time for face-to-face meetings
changed?

11

. Mat is
import‘d
knmylcc

In the that“

depth. The.\' are 1"
future work OTL-‘J‘ll‘
orga izations. FNI
dominated by 'Ills‘

location and time b
the patterns of \\ he
la'o'ler (1998t rein!
organizational dc‘Sl':
today‘s competitiy e
satal the crucial nt

organizations and \s

0 What is the impact of diversity for a globally dispersed team? How
important is the existence and enhancement of a shared base of
knowledge among team members to team performance effectiveness?

In the chapters that follow these issues will be addressed in much greater

depth. They are important issues because they begin to map out the dimensions of a
future work organization system that will be used by many workers and
organizations. Frances Caimcross (1997) declares that we are entering an era
dominated by ‘the death of distance’ in which technology erases distinctions such as
location and time by creating the ability for companies and their workers to alter all
the patterns of where people work and how they work. Mohrman, Galbraith, and
Lawler (1998) reinforce Cairncross’ message as they discuss the dramatic changes in
organizational design and performance measures that are increasingly a part of
today’s competitive environment. The broader perspectives offered by these authors
signal the crucial need to study global teams as one critical element of future

organizations and work places.

12

Ancona D. G. and 7
Activity and Per

Bettenhausen. K. L.
learned and \Xh.
345—381.

Bhalla. R. K. (1908
Case Study." El

Caimcross. F. (199'
lit/1 Change ()1

Cohen S. G. and I.
Effectiyeness R
.h’unagemem :7

Crandall, F., N. ant
ll'orlquace: a "

MHC O.\l.

fisher. K and .‘\1.
Performance 11

y . . .
orlt. Amertcai

RESOURCES CITED

Ancona, D. G. and D. F. Caldwell (1992). “Bridging the Boundary: External
Activity and Performance in.” Administrative Science Quarterly 37 (4): 634—665.

Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). “Five Years of Groups Research: What We Have
learned and What Needs to Be Addressed.” Journal of Management 17 (2):
345—381.

Bhalla, R. K. (1998). “The Group Processes of Globally Distributed Work Teams: A
Case Study.” Electronic paper: http://www.amiltd com/GlobalTeams.html

Cairncross, F. (1997). The Death of Distance: How the Communications Revolution
Will Change Our Lives. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.

Cohen, S. G. and D. E. Bailey (1997). “What Makes Teams Work: Group
Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite.” Journal of
Management 23 (3): 239—291.

Crandall, F., N. and M. J. Wallace (1998). Work and Rewards in the Virtual
Workplace: a "New Deal " for Organizations and Employees. New York,
AMACOM.

Fisher, K. and M. D. Fisher (1998). The Distributed Mind: Achieving High
Performance through the Collective Intelligence of Knowledge Work Teams. New
York, American Management Association.

Geber, B. (1995). “Virtual Teams.” Training 32 (4): 36—41.

Guzzo, R. A. and M. W. Dickson (1996). Teams in Organizations: Recent Research

on Performance and Effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology. Palo Alto, CA
47: 307—338.

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The Design of Work Teams. Handbook of Organizational
Behavior. J. W. Lorsch. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall: 315-342.

Hackman, R. J., Ed. (1990). Groups that Work (and Those That Don’t): Creating
Conditions for Effective Teamwork. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York,
McGraw-Hill.

Hollingshead, A. B. and J. E. McGrath (1995). Computer-Assisted Groups: A
Critical Review of the Empirical Research. Team Eflectiveness and Decision

13

.l/aking in ()rgy
Publishers: 4o—

.lackson. S.. E.. K.
Diversity in D!
in Organimtim

304-261 .

Jackson. S. E. (19
Managing an 1
S. Worchel. \\

anm S. L. 1
Antecedents 0
I’lllvmation s3

Janienpaa‘ S ' I. . a
nttp.i--’s"\mM; an

“in J. A. (1991
Practices." Hz

Teamsfi- Elect

Knoll. K. and S

TECH-ms. .. hnp I.

a . . I

Sociotechnical

Making in Organizations. R. A. Guzzo and E. Salas. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass
Publishers: 46—78.

Jackson, S., E., K. B. May, and K. Whitney (1995). Understanding the Dynamics of
Diversity in Decision-Making Teams. Team Eflectiveness and Decision Making

in Organizations. R. A. Guzzo and E. Salas. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass:
204-261.

Jackson, S. E. (1991). Team Composition in Organizational Settings: Issues in

Managing an Increasingly Diverse Workforce. Group Process and Productivity.
8. Worchel, W. Wood and S. Simpson. Newbury, CA, Sage: 138—171.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., K. Knoll, and D. E. Leidner (1998). “Is Anybody Out There?
Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams.” Journal of Management
Information Systems 14 (4): 29—64.

Jarvenpaa, S. L. and D. E. Leidner (1998). “Communication and Trust in Global
Virtual Teams.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication:
http://www. ascusc. org/jcmc/voI3/issue4/jarvenpaa. html

Klein, J. A. (1991). “A Reexamination of Autonomy in Light of New Manufacturing
Practices.” Human Relations 44 (1): 21—38.

Knoll, K. and S. L. Jarvenpaa ( 1995). “Learning to Work in Distributed Global
Teams.” Electronic version—previous version presented at HICSS 1995.

Knoll, K. and S. L. Jarvenpaa (1997). “Learning to Work in Distributed Global
Teams.” http://www. bus. utexas. edu/~jarvenpaa/gvt/gvt98/hicss. html

Kolodny, H. F. and M. N. Kiggundu (1980). “Towards the Development of a
Sociotechnical Systems Model in Woodlands Mechanical Harvesting.” Human
Relations 33 (9): 623—631.

Lipnack, J. and J. Stamps (1997). Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time, and
Organizations with Technology. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

McDermott, L. C., N. Brawley, and W. Waite (1998). World Class Teams: Working
Across Borders. New York, John Wiley & Sons.

McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction. New York, Holt.

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
Prentice-Hall, Inc.

McGrath, J. E. and I. Altman (1966). Small Group Research; a Synthesis and
Critique of the Field. New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

14

McGrath. J. E.. H. A
O’Connor (199:).
and Change." Sm

 

Milliken. F. J. and L.
l'nderstanding [h
Academy of Man.

\lohnnan. 8. .~‘\.. J. 1
Organization. ('1
Francisco. JUSSC}

0'Hara-Dmereaux.
Culture. and It!

Pearce. l. A. l. and
Regulating Wot

Pelletl L. H.. K. .\
Analysis of \\'i
Science Quam

Personnel and
Greenwich~ C"

Snell. S. A.. C. C

and SUPPOnin
esource Mu;

Salomon. C. .\l 4
Journal 74 (7

SUTLdSIIQn—L E .
and EffeCllVe

T0 RR“

.5

Send. . . \.
for \‘irmm T
Tounsend’ A \

C‘CthIOQV
Ieczmve '( ~

McGrath, J. E., H. Arrow, D. H. Gruenfeld, A. B. Hollingshead, and K. M.
O’Connor (1993). “Groups, Tasks, and Technology: The Effects of Experience
and Change.” Small Group Research 24 (3): 406—420.

Milliken, F. J. and L. L. Martins (1996). “Searching for Common Threads:
Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups.”
Academy of Management Review 21 (2): 402—433.

Mohrman, S. A., J. R. Galbraith, and E. E. Lawler (1998). Tomorrow ’s
Organization: Crafting Winning Capabilities in a Dynamic World. San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.

O’Hara-Devereaux, M. and R. Johansen (1994). Globalwork: Bridging Distance,
Culture, and Time. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Pearce, J. A. I. and E. C. Ravlin (1987). “The Design and Activation of Self-
Regulating Work Groups.” Human Relations 40 (11): 751—760.

Pelled, L. H., K. M. Eisenhardt, and K. R Xin (1999). “Exploring the Black Box: an
Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict, and Performance.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 44 (1): 1—27.

Shea, G. P. and R. A. Guzzo (1987). Groups as Human Resources. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management. K. M. Rowland and G. R. Ferris.
Greenwich, CT, JAI Press. 5: 323—356.

Snell, S. A., C. C. Snow, S. C. Davison, and D. C. Hambrick (1998). “Designing
and Supporting Transnational Teams: The Human Resource Agenda.” Human
Resource Management Summer 1998, 37 (2): 147—158.

Solomon, C. M. (1995). “Global Teams: The Ultimate Collaboration.” Personnel
Journal 74 (7): 70—75.

Sundstrom, E., K. P. DeMeuse, and D. Futrell (1990). “Work Teams: Applications
and Effectiveness.” American Psychologist 45 (2): 120—133.

Townsend, A. M., S. M. DeMarie, and A. R. Hendrickson ( 1996). “Are You Ready
for Virtual Teams?” HRMagazine 41 (9): 122.

Townsend, A. M., S. M. DeMarie, and A. R. Hendrickson (1998). “Virtual Teams:

Technology and the Workplace of the Future.” The Academy of Management
Executive (August) 12 (3): 17—30.

15

There is to da
Eten as this disserta'.
academic experts art
he goal of helping
of empirical researc
many people \xho z
m the literature on
‘he existing \x'ork t
effectix'e leadershij

Wards and traini

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

There is to date only a small body of empirical work on dispersed teams.
Even as this dissertation is being written, many practitioners, consultants, and
academic experts are studying globally dispersed, virtual, or distributed teams, with
the goal of helping people succeed in this new work organization system. The lack
of empirical research and study on this type of work organization system has led
many people who are seeking answers to questions about team performance to refer
to the literature on collocated teams. Thus, in any study of globally dispersed teams,
the existing work on teams should be the starting point. Teams still need to have
effective leadership, clear goals, ample resources, and structural supports such as
rewards and training. Managers and others helping to facilitate the work of virtual
teams must provide such essentials. However, there are additional questions: Are
the same essentials sufficient? Or must other factors be considered, especially in a
rapidly shifting work and competitive environment?

This study proposes to begin answering these questions, because it is clear
that dispersed teams and collocated teams have significant differences. The spatial
and temporal issues of not sharing the same workspace or geographic location are,
perhaps, the most obvious of these differences. Another difference is the speed of

change that increases as electronic communication and the tools of production

16

become ever more 1
ad more to other ‘
moot et'er mcclll?
communication met
building interdepent
essential is not yet
accommodate collo.
can be effectn e!) s
hierarchies.

The general
b} Hafkman and or
foundation for this
Hackman. this term
Stat explores [hc di}
for

an OngOinL’ dlSC‘

Although thi

become ever more sophisticated. People today form global groups, complete tasks.
and move to other virtual projects without leaving their home location and, at times.
without ever meeting their colleagues on any project face-to-face. Electronic
communication mediates relationships, and it is not yet clear what impact that has on
building interdependency and trust in these relationships. What factors are most
essential is not yet known. In addition, organizations have been structured to
accommodate collocated teams; but it is not yet clear that globally dispersed teams
can be effectively supported using these same reward structures and leadership
hierarchies.

The general plan of this review is to begin by examining the existing work
by Hackman and others on collocated teams. Since this work provided much of the
foundation for this study, it is important to understand the details. Beyond
Hackman, this review will examine both collocated and dispersed teams literature
that explores the differences in these types of teams and provides a more solid basis
for an ongoing discussion of dispersed teams.

Although this study will only review selected aspects of the differences
between collocated and dispersed teams, it has focused on essential exploration of
the critical areas in which the two types of teams differ. Critical areas of the teams
literature will also be addressed in this review: 1) aspects of organizational context
for dispersed teams—accountability, rewards, and diversity; and 2) performance
effectiveness. Because the answers or the “truth” are moving targets, it is of real
importance to engage in ongoing dialogue about these issues. Many of us are now
or will soon be working in some form of dispersed team. We will shape those
experiences through our interactions; the experiences will in turn offer us

17

  

opponunities constra.

 

framing the \ssue it

Building on \t
Morris 11975). llack
ei‘ectit'eness that is
Eaderstanding this
model (Pearce and
3984; Camriion, .\‘
RNin. and Selim
to the study of gr

azdztional theorie

opportunities constrained only by our readiness to experiment or our ability to learn

as we go.

Framing the Issue in the Teams Literature

Building on work by McGrath (1964), and an earlier model by Hackman and
Morris (1975), Hackman created in 1987 a more fully developed model of group
effectiveness that is used in this dissertation as the standard (see Figure 2.1).
Understanding this model facilitates study of other researchers’ work built on this
model (Pearce and Ravlin 1987), work built on some aspect of the model (Gladstein
1984; Campion, Medsker, and Higgs 1993) and work that departs from it (Goodman.
Ravlin, and Schminke 1987; Kolodny and Kiggundu 1980). Hackman’s contribution
to the study of groups is central to creation of further knowledge about teams and

additional theories for understanding teams.

18

2:... .5 E... J.-- ..- ..- J
5 naazaooa =§§=8 BEQSE b2...

:95 is o
2 33...} 82:82 $5.35 :2: 2.828 1
55.25: B BSBEB 2%. ~ =swme§flq

 

«magenta—«Ema

 

ages a: 82.0;
.382.“ 9.80 93 38m ”.25 a? «55825 a: a .12 as»; sec 333 @8385 955% .082 5852 23° 3:55 .2 2 2&5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8%.
8395
093593
0320 o
882
85:85 9.2» 2: 3 38a
32» 05 v8: 838% 838a .
B Bungee as: agata ”as as» a «2255..
35:3 89: Ea “7.8 05 .«o $50825 .3 3on 33a
88... e852 . Baggage. . 05 2 8=§a< «ES 955 .
coco—amaohm x83 v7.8 . gag 98» 05
no 35855: 3 woman :2“ Co 8289.89 .
a 55%.: can onto—3°5— % is
333 3 200an .«o 2:55 o 05 .«0 535m 0
co gzfiao . as as as as 8 one»
a 532 a use» as S 22.828 menace 2a
0382 9.3 305 .89 2 £389 man—En 35 amine <
3 055an tag .«0 ES 0 2
398 new . 3 Al
3% .«o a. :0 mm m
23%»
859585 o
88%»
. Eugen .
0:5 so can 806% custom o
:03 97.5 05 29:88 a? £33 “7.8
2 3:52 82:82 goo 828:? 3a
manage Ho @8855 atone—m .2. .2038 <
3% 3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

19

This modCl
'teeause it {Muses
etiectit‘eness—and
manipulated 10 P”
strengths and weal
Hackman focuses
Wssibility that cot

Work grUU]
end of this ret‘ie\\‘
interest here as pa
effectiveness: "Tl
the state of the grt
EZIOUP experience <
grout: effort. the k
15¢ Performa

nce st
CI"35951 in a definit
we”defined ('ra

1323).

AlthWish di

aitilitt' ~
.. IO bod .
esrgn
a a

This model is introduced as “a normative model of group effectiveness”
because it focuses on a single multidimensional outcome—work group
effectiveness—and it identifies aspects of the work group and context that may be
manipulated to promote team effectiveness, as well as used to diagnose “the
strengths and weaknesses of groups as performing units” (Hackman 1987: 316).
Hackman focuses narrowly on work groups1 and wants his model to “increase the
possibility that constructive change can occur” (322).

Work‘group effectiveness is the subject of more in-depth discussion at the
end of this review. However, Hackman’s (1987) criteria for effectiveness are of
interest here as part of the discussion of the model. Three criteria are used to assess
effectiveness: “The first deals with the actual output of the group, the second with
the state of the group as a performing unit, and the third with the impact of the
group experience on individual members” (323). Effectiveness is a function of
group effort, the knowledge and skill of group members, and the appropriateness of
the performance strategies the group chooses. The “inclusion of social and personal
criteria in a definition of effectiveness is a departure from tradition as is the use of
system-defined (rather than researcher defined) assessments of a group’s output”
(323).

Although diagnostic criteria are important, Hackman’s model offers the
ability to “design and manage a group so that task effective group processes emerge

naturally” (324). He sets out three major factors that govern group behavior, which

 

' Work groups in organizations is defined as (1) real groups with “intact social
systems with boundaries and differentiated roles;” (2) groups that have one or more
tasks to perform resulting measurable group products; (3) “groups that operate within
an organizational context” (Hackman 1987: 322).

20

therefore will shape

unit; (I) the support

 

operates; and (31 the

. a
\

1,31). Research on
ifanpion. Medskcr
sought to demonstr.
l: is unclear \Vhetlh
teams are generaliz
Fackman's three t
Group Desi gn

A \\ ell-des
rfi'O-Iit’ational. to b
M‘Omance. Su,
effective behmm,
and POSSess the r

p .
0‘ dll'ersitt'.

therefore will shape group effectiveness: “the design of the group as a performing
unit; (2) the support provided by the organizational context in which the group
operates; and (3) the synergistic outcomes of the interaction among group members"
(331). Research on team effectiveness that incorporates these and other factors
(Campion, Medsker, and Higgs 1993; Campion. Papper, and Medsker 1996) has
sought to demonstrate that teams designed with these components can be effective.
It is unclear whether any combination or all of these factors applicable to collocated
teams are generalizable to globally dispersed teams. A brief discussion of

Hackman’s three factors will allow greater understanding of the issues.

Group Design

A well-designed group will undertake a task that is structured to be
motivational, to be meaningful, to provide autonomy, and to provide feedback on
performance. Such a task. combined with group norms. will pave the way for task-
effective behaviors to emerge. The group itself will be of a proper size for the task
and possess the necessary task and interpersonal skills, as well as moderate amounts

of diversity.

Organizational Context

The organization will provide rewards, education and training, and
information flow to the group. The appropriate support is critical to the performance
of a team and enhances the potential of the well-designed team. The organization
must provide structural and material resources such as tools, space, human resources,
and, in the case of dispersed teams, time. Time is a resource that dispersed teams

21

need for face’m'mc

email discussions.

&

contextual element

Group it "87.3

This factor 1
uorlttSteiner 19.3
elements. Hackma
Positite synergies i
situations. Negatit
‘9 synergy, "A hig
results that are mo:

contributions" ( Ye

Hackman st

duaaboration \yithi

fro ~
fit each Other an

those Obtained by 1

tocLurs m aum.
1

hile COIlECIiVe 1C

Gershenfeld et al

Cells: ' .
{1‘6 learninn

Hackman.s

need for face-to-face meetings, which supplement meetings in teleconferences and
email discussions. Support to enhance electronic relationships is a resource and

contextual element that Hackman does not consider.

Group Synergy

This factor is aimed at reducing the process losses that accompany group
work (Steiner 1972) and helps the group coordinate its design and contextual
elements. Hackman distinguishes between positive and negative group synergies.
Positive synergies occur when the group takes advantage of favorable performance
situations. Negative synergy occurs when the process losses exceed any gains due
to synergy. “A highly coordinated and cooperative team can produce synergy or
results that are more effective than the sum of the individual team members’
contributions” (Yeatts and Hyten 1998: 34).

Hackman seems to try to capture the process of knowledge creation or
collaboration within the group. He discusses the idea that group members can learn
from each other and foster collective learning or group outcomes different from
those obtained by the individual members working alone. Cross-training of the type
that occurs in autonomous work groups is the example he uses to illustrate this idea.
While collective learning is one of the great strengths of collocated teams (Cutcher-
Gershenfeld et al. 1998), it is likely that in dispersed teams the opportunities for
collective learning stretch across many locations.

Hackman’s model provides a well-developed framework for studying teams.
It specifies the importance of a long list of factors including task structure, goal
clarity, rewards, group composition, knowledge and skill levels, and feedback.

22

These are all impon

‘ettteen a collocatee

 

Beyond Hackman:
ln l'irtua/ 71"
its heart. a good teat
guidelines in Hackn'
lnthe case of the tl
Honet‘er. those \yhs
talue the outcome :
selected because it
or challenging it in
teams examined in
In their eco‘.
Futrell (1990') do r.
Flt-Wk that Work

context boundarie<

State“ (

These are all important elements for a team. However, they do not distinguish

between a collocated team and a virtual or dispersed team.

Beyond Hackman: Teams Collocated and Virtual

In Virtual Teams, Lipnack and Stamps state that “A good virtual team is, at
its heart, a good team” (24). For many people a good team would follow closely the
guidelines in Hackman’s model. For others, alternative models are more satisfying.
In the case of the theoretical work, each model examines collocated teams.

However, those who are looking for answers to team performance questions may
value the outcome and use whatever model works. The literature that follows was
selected because it adds to the debate in this paper by extending the Hackman Model
or challenging it in ways that seem relevant to the aspects of virtual or dispersed
teams examined in this study.

In their ecological approach to team performance. Sundstrom, DeMeuse, and
Futrell (1990) do not use an input-process-output format a la McGrath (1964). They
propose that work team effectiveness is "dynamically interrelated with organizational
context, boundaries and team development” and is “more a process than an end
state” (Sundstrom 1990: 121). Teams “change and develop new ways of operating
as they adapt to their contexts” (Yeatts and Hyten 1998: 37). The framework is
developed to illustrate an approach in which the physical environment plays a role.
In other words, work groups are embedded in a larger context with boundaries that
separate the team from the organization and help to define “what constitutes

effectiveness for the team in its particular context” (Sundstrom 1990: 124).

Describe
the larger 5} stei
others. while at
through expert‘
organizational
people \t'orltin
[Sundstrom \‘
huh shape 1.;

DCSpii

Futrell’s dd}

Described in terms of Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), a team is integrated into
the larger system through coordination with customers. suppliers, managers, and
others, while at the same time the team is differentiated from other work units
through expertise or task specifics. “A work team is differentiated from its
organizational context to the extent that it comprises an identifiable collection of
people working in a specific place, over the same time period, on a unique task”
(Sundstrom 1990: 126). In other words, external relations and internal processes
both shape team effectiveness through the management of boundaries.

Despite the place/time constraints expressed in Sundstrom. DeMeuse, and
Futrell’s definition of a work team, this ecological approach has great appeal for
those studying dispersed teams because of the issue of boundaries. Team members
often have several sets of boundaries that define their context. Frequently they are
responsible to a home location, as well as to a separate dispersed team. Thus, they
have intragroup boundaries, intergroup boundaries, and boundaries distinguishing
them from external entities as well. Ancona and Caldwell (1992) have presented a
clear set of strategies that teams use to manage their relations with external groups.
This literature, however, does not completely describe the conditions faced by virtual
teams.

The boundary-crossing of dispersed teams may be more reflective of the
characteristics of cross-functional teams, which may be collocated but work in
different functional areas. Proehl (1996) proposes that cross-functional teams
require different structures and support systems, because their projects may not be
related to “the members’ immediate work and members have many competing
responsibilities and varying degrees of immediate management support for

24

participating in OIL—'4
examples of the I} F
teams.

Sundstrom. l
collocated teams \\l
which only allows t
time and place. are
Gitltultt'ork. O ’l lar.
beconsidered \tlren
il‘i'UP\\are for use i

central to the intera.

ort'ar'

.ga .tzational suppt

loundaryerossinu i

The sp

ecitics
gohal team. Table

for d? ‘
->P€rsed teams.

to complete their ta

597035 [heSe dl f"

Ierer

participating in organizational initiatives” (8). Reward and incentive systems are
examples of the types of structures or support systems that may affect dispersed
teams.

Sundstrom, DeMeuse, and Futrell (1990) also restrict their theory to
collocated teams when they incorporate a temporal element into their approach,
which only allows for a team to be in one place at one time. These last two factors.
time and place, are critical distinctions for virtual or dispersed teams. In their book
Globalwork, O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen (1994) describe the options that must
be considered when selecting the appropriate electronic communications software or
groupware for use by a virtual team. The selection of communications software is
central to the interaction of a dispersed team and an essential element of
organizational support for a team. because it can help to dissolve some of the
boundary-crossing issues such teams face.

The specifics of time and place may well be unique for each member of a
global team. Table 2.1 shows the combinations of place and time that are possible
for dispersed teams. These dimensions have a direct impact on how teams interact
to complete their tasks. Lipnack and Stamps (1997) characterize the interaction
across these differences as boundary crossing and use it to explain the virtual aspect
of teams.

The day-in and day-out reality of communicating, interacting, and

forming relationships across space, time, and organizations makes

teams virtual (41).

The greater the degree of difference in time and place, the more complex these

arrangements can become. At some point, time and place also begin to include

25

differences in CUlltl

 

teams will be disct; '

l

Table 2.1: Virtual
and Ex;

 

 

Same Time Same

 

Same Time Differ
\
Different Time Set

\
Different Time T)

 

L

lDerit'ed from d’

TQ‘SS] ’- N

N

.

Llpnack at
Wort- teams hat
'e

“lich- ‘

‘u - .
restrained bx.

fig? .
I“, '3:

differences in culture, language, values, and norms. The diversity issues in dispersed

teams will be discussed at length below.

Table 2.1: Virtual Teams: Potential Temporal and Spatial Combinations
and Examples

 

 

 

Same Time/Same Place Traditional synchronous face-to-face
meeting

Same Time/Different Place A synchronous group meeting
mediated by conference call
technology

Different Time/Same Place Computerized media used by people at

different times such as a shared
computer data base consulted by all
three shifts in a factory

 

Different Time/Different Place Asynchronous links among distributed
members such as email messages
exchanged by group members on
different continents

 

 

 

 

[Derived from discussion in Globalwork, by O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen 1994:
79—88}

Lipnack and Stamps (1997) add another dimension to time and space when
they suggest an organizational dimension. Formerly. organizational boundaries for
work teams have been as narrowly drawn as an employee’s own work area or as
widely defined as cross departmental, but the boundaries were consistently inside the
same organization. New technologies have allowed the creation of a new workplace
“unrestrained by geography, time. and organizational boundaries” (Townsend 1998:
17). Not only are organizational structures flatter and more distributed, these

organizations have increasingly complicated relationships with other organizations as

26

companies collabor.
H1981.

Within these
Table 2.3 is adapte.
ways that teams are
rejoined here into

in space takes time

 

reflects these expert

team members in te

Table 2.2: Types .

‘

 

Spacetime (treat
idea here since 6
space takes time

Same

l,\

ifferent

l

 

companies collaborate and compete together simultaneously (Davis and Meyer
1998).

Within these complex structures. teams can occur in a variety of forms.
Table 2.2 is adapted from Lipnack and Stamp (1997) and illustrates some of the
ways that teams are constituted within and between organizations. Space and time
are joined here into one idea in line with the precepts of physics in which distance
in space takes time to cross. The new conceptualization of organizational diversity
reflects these experiments with new types of relationships and the variation between

team members in terms of organizational affiliation and culture.

Table 2.2: Types of Teams with the Dimension of Organizational Diversity

 

 

 

Spacetime (treated as one Organization

idea here since distance in .

space takes time to cross Same Different
Same Collocated Collocated

Cross-Organizational
(Conventional) Virtual

 

Different Distributed or Dispersed Distributed or
Dispersed
(Virtual) Cross-Organizational
(Virtual)

 

 

 

 

 

With increasing complexity there is greater impetus for new ways to explain
and understand these phenomena. Consultants and practitioners are developing new
materials to try to explain how globally dispersed teams function on a day-to-day
basis in organizations. Some new approaches are emerging out of a mix of

traditional teams research and observation of actual team situations. For example.

27

Lipnack and Stain?

 

oft eir model are ;
I

he inputs. processe-

md Morris (1975 i,

by relating them to

.- rceii'e relate to \

 

adds a ‘spin~ to cla:
approach in this \\L
To start a y
goals. and r
developmer
mterdepend
interactions
results. imt
With inteur

“In. - .
.ttte it is not \c

on three critical :

zzeld to illustrate

“dilated C 0 m |

Lipnack and Stamps (1997) propose a three-part model for virtual teams: The parts
of their model are people. purpose. and links (47). They elaborate this model onto
the inputs, processes, and outputs framework used by McGrath (1964) and Hackman
and Morris (1975). Lipnack and Stamps enlarge upon each of these three elements
by relating them to general team theory, then identifying differences the authors
perceive relate to virtual teams (48). The basic premise is that “virtuality always
adds a ‘spin’ to classic leamings about teams” (49). They briefly describe their
approach in this way:

To start a virtual team. you need independent people. cooperative

goals, and multiple media. As the team goes through its life cycle

development process, people share leadership, undertake

interdependent tasks, and engage in myriad boundary-crossing

interactions. As the team’s life cycle unfolds, it produces concrete

results, integrated levels of organization. and if the teaming is done

with integrity, trusting relationships (48—49).
While it is not yet ready for use as an academic theory, the framework does focus

on three critical areas of team development, each supported with examples from the

field to illustrate details.

Mediated Communication

One element of the Lipnack and Stamps (1997) model is links, defined as the
use of multiple media for boundary-crossing interactions that may evolve into
trusting relationships. While this may be a bit optimistic. team member interactions
and the use of communication media are serious issues for those who are working
with virtual teams. It is one of the new dilemmas created by virtual teams. It is
much more difficult to develop interpersonal ties of credibility and trust when
communication is electronically mediated rather than face-to-face.

28

i
Several groi-

 

relationships and i:

   

(1007‘) looked at g'fi
sat‘sfaction \yith gr
task either face-tow.
in a controlled expt
elational links on
slightly more infor
teams than in the
and complete the
\V arken ti r

communication ‘

~ Lant
tace~rg.f;me u

Several groups of researchers have begun to study the problem of building
relationships and interacting electronically. Warkentin, Sayeed, and Hightower
(1997) looked at group cohesiveness, perceptions of group interaction process. and
satisfaction with group outcomes among teams of undergraduates who completed a
task either face-to-face or using computer-mediated communication systems (CMCS)
in a controlled experimental setting. The face-to-face teams reported stronger
relational links on all three variables than the teams using CMCS. In addition,
slightly more information was exchanged in the one meeting of the face-to-face
teams than in the three weeks allowed for the asynchronous CMCS teams to “meet"
and complete the task.

Warkentin, Sayeed, and Hightower ask whether teams using mediated
communication will be able to establish relational links that help create trust in the
team and generate satisfaction with the process. Team members who are dissatisfied
working in dispersed or virtual teams may not perform as effectively—just as might
occur on collocated teams. The finding of interest in this study was that there was
no significant difference in the effectiveness of information exchange between the
face-to-face group and the CMCS group, despite the difference in satisfaction levels.

It is important to consider both the social psychological and the technological
aspects of using CMCS with work teams. McGrath and others (1993) have
suggested that dispersed teams might benefit from team building face-to-face at the
startup of the team so that the impact of technology might be modified.

Technology can aid or hinder a group in its performance of processes

that lie at the core of group existence—its development or norms, its

members’ participation patterns, and its members satisfaction with
themselves, their group, and its work. The technology can become an

29

integral par l
functional 5.

Technolog)’ changc
the group. This is
depend on technolt
whether the experi
expression of the
lssues of ti
bylan'enpaa. Lei
teams where ther:
leidner 1998; 3,.
in Virtual teams 1
plehOlOgical d1:
KIlOll, and LClLlI‘

he trust that an

integral part of the meaning of the group as a continuing, dynamic,
functional social system (77—78).

Technology changes group interaction and the experience of the people working in
the group. This is an important element of the work in and on dispersed teams that
depend on technology to function. For organizations, one concern may need to be
whether the experience of working on a dispersed team still allows the optimal
expression of the skills each team member brings to the job.

Issues of trust and communication are also at the core of a series of studies
by Jarvenpaa, Leidner, and Knoll. This work asks whether trust can exist in virtual
teams where there is a “lack of shared social context” (Jarvenpaa, Knoll, and
Leidner 1998: 3). The “catch” in this situation is that trust is even more important
in virtual teams than in face-to-face teams, because it prevents the creation of
psychological distance to augment the effect of geographic distance (Jarvenpaa,
Knoll, and Leidner 1998: 30). Trust built in virtual teams may be “swift trust,” or
the trust that develops in highly active, but temporary teams such as cockpit crews
or film crews (Meyerson 1996). In the Jarvenpaa and Leidner study, teams that
reported a trusting relationship started early to exhibit trusting behavior. Trusting
behavior was derived from early communications, which exhibited confidence,
enthusiasm, support, and commitment. Virtual teams may need to pay close
attention to their communication behaviors (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1998: 28).

Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1998) assume in their study that virtual teams have
three dimensions: no common past or future, cultural diversity and geographic
dispersion, and electronic communication media. The participants in their study

were master’s degree students in business schools at 28 universities around the

30

world They \VCI’
results will getter;
llhereas these stt
reputations they \
together. uork to:
about the long-tor
merrhers. This v
tl9'96jt,

There is n'
High-tower (1097,
”99%) studies [1
Organizations. T}
members. SUCh L15
“35 electronic me
in a Virtual conte.‘

AlIhOUgh t

collocated teams

filer}
.ttt} as a Serio

world. They were, indeed, diverse and shared a task. but it is unclear whether the
results will generalize to team members in business or competitive settings.
Whereas these students had little concern about the long-term professional
reputations they were building, it is possible that global team members who work
together, work for the same firm, or in a professional capacity may have concerns
about the long-term impact of performance on their relationships with other team
members. This would coincide with findings in Meyerson. Weick, and Kramer
(1996)

There is much that can be learned from the Warkentin, Sayeed, and
Hightower (1997), Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1998), and Jarvenpaa, Knoll, and Leidner
(1998) studies. It will be important to repeat similar studies with virtual teams in
organizations. The studies point to potential areas for skill development among team
members, such as greater awareness of communication skills, and greater ability to
use electronic media comfortably and expertly and to develop a greater sense of ease
in a virtual context.

Although Shea and Guzzo (1987) are building a theory that they apply to
collocated teams, it is of value to apply it to dispersed teams. For example, they
identify as a serious problem the need to create and maintain groups that are
informed, inspired, and competent, and to do so quickly (327). The skills needed to
integrate group work into the organization will become part of the skills set of each
of member of the organization. Additionally, the human resources choices that are
customarily made for individuals must also be made about groups, given the
increasing importance of groups in organizations. These two shifts in skills and
emphasis are also important to consider today as they pertain to virtual teams.

31

Given curr.

 

Hendrickson t 19%

    
   

required to integra'
also seems inetita‘r
as selection. hiring
includes virtual int

Three \uriu‘
task interdependen
embers": outcon
members that is e
belief of group n‘
products or semi.
Performance con
C0”Sequences es

Because
COTEil’aimS SCI I
group and mm

COL;

T
id be use fu.

(IL?

't’i
.uos tho“. \

Rim COuld be

Lag:
‘ua‘ée and

rhea a
84

~ I. There-

Em . ;
K

Given current trends such as those discussed by Townsend. DeMarie. and
Hendrickson (1998), organization members will need to have the competencies
required to integrate virtual teams into the work systems of their organizations. It
also seems inevitable that the gamut of human resource decision-making areas such
as selection, hiring, and rewards will need to integrate a set of assumptions that
includes virtual interactions and global policy differences.

Three variables determine group effectiveness in the Shea and Guzzo theory:
task interdependence, or “the degree of task-driven interaction among group
members”; outcome interdependence, or “the nature of the fate shared by group
members that is contingent on group performance”; and potency, or “the collective
belief of group members'that the group can be effective” by delivering the required
products or services (331). In other words, the authors examine the task
performance consequences of interaction, rather than the socio-emotional
consequences examined by Hackman (1987).

Because this model does not emphasize group process, it may fit the
constraints set up by a virtual environment. It may be that. by de-emphasizing the
group and putting the emphasis on the nature of the task and outcomes, this theory
could be useful. The goal or “charter” of the group must be clear and defined so
groups know where they are going. Goal clarity among members of a dispersed
team could be extremely important especially when team diversity might include
language and culture norms.

Shea and Guzzo believe that the “primary task of work groups is work”
(343). They go far in trying to develop a theory that avoids all of the socio-
emotional ideas of theorists such as Hackman. This may be a bit too narrow a view,

32

but some of their ;

 

distinct from the it

decisions that mus

cross organizationa
So although

some [6‘de are Illt

 

\

pertormance. it is r
questions pertain tr
meories about tean
asthis selective re

meets of organiz;

issues may lend at

ASpects
0f 0 ".111 r

Th -
e Organ:

Ram member mu.

but some of their points are well taken. Work groups are complex, and they are
distinct from the individuals who comprise them. The scope of the human resource
decisions that must be made for virtual teams is as global as their locations and may
cross organizational and governmental boundaries, which could provide challenges.
So although the extant teams literature provides significant insights into why
some teams are more effective, and what characteristics are essential for team
performance, it is not sufficient to answer all the questions. Especially when the
questions pertain to virtual teams, there are gaps in the research to date. Existing
theories about teams and groups are constrained by their basis in collocated teams,
as this selective review has shown. The next part of this review will consider
aspects of organizational context that affect dispersed teams. Considering contextual

issues may lend additional insight into how these teams work.

Aspects of Organizational Context

The organizational context for dispersed teams is far from unitary. Each
team member may be working in an environment very different from those of the
other team members. To date no research has studied the virtual organizational
context. Given this lack of specific research, two other areas of relevant research
have been selected to provide some insight: the team theories of Hackman (1987)
and Gladstein (1984), as well as the work by Ancona and Caldwell (1992); and the
literature on cross—functional teams.

Hackman’s (1987) position on organizational context is discussed above in
this review, but, as Denison, Hart. and Kahn (1996) indicate, this model examines
“context by looking at the interactions between individual teams and their

33

organizational em
organizational \ari
This interaction be

later research by A

 

to influence the ex
tend to portray the
till complexity of
teams exist.
Sundstrom.
partly define how
Tne question for r
R them, The qu
SL‘Ch as reward an
the team.
Denison‘ }

.“
‘I'F‘
‘H‘lk

.ional teams I

organizational environment” (1006). Gladstein (1984) observes that external
organizational variables influenced group effectiveness directly or indirectly (514).
This interaction between the group and the environment is also a main ingredient in
later research by Ancona and Caldwell (1992). Here the group is strategically trying
to influence the external environment. The limitation of these studies is that they
tend to portray the environment as somewhat unidimensional and do not capture the
full complexity of the environment within which cross-functional and dispersed
teams exist.

Sundstrom, DeMeuse, and Futrell (1990) report that “boundaries at least
partly define how a group needs to operate within its context to be effective” (121).
The question for many virtual teams may be which boundaries to use and when to
use them. The questions become more complicated when organizational structures
such as reward and incentive systems are not connected to the actual performance of
the team.

Denison, Hart, and Kahn (1996) offer a description of the context of cross-
functional teams that reflects many of the complexities of virtual teams. They say
that the context “differs from more conventional teams in that it includes
hierarchical, lateral, and inter-team dependencies that require constant negotiation”
(1013). As we have already seen, for virtual teams these boundaries could extend to
cross organizational and cross cultural.

Such complexity makes it difficult for members of virtual teams to define
their identities as team members and to organize their complete set of tasks (team

and home location responsibilities). In this review we will examine three aspects of

34

  

the orcaniZflllona]

potentially amid

Accountability
Accountahi

at all let'els. All

that they haye lin

171} work SClllng

Somewhat limited.
Accordinu
external (to the pe

both internal and e

m ot~

the organizational context that can cause problems for dispersed team members and

potentially affect team effectiveness: accountability. rewards. and diversity.

Accountability

Accountability is a fundamental. element of organizations and social systems
at all levels. All employment systems share at least some form of accountability, in
that they have lines of accountability (Kraines 1996). Therefore, accountability in
any work setting can be a potential source of tension. Expectations must be
carefully and clearly expressed or they will not be met properly, which then can
trigger grave consequences. Yet our understanding of the dynamics that occur when
members of virtual teams are held accountable for decisions and actions remains
somewhat limited.

According to Ferris et al. (1995), accountability can be defined from an
external (to the person) or internal perspective. On a team, members often deal with
both internal and external perspectives. From the external perspective,

Accountability (a) emphasizes a system of review of behavior by some

constituency, and (b) includes having salient rewards or punishments

contingent upon the review. Thus, in organizations, accountability

implies a system of rewards and sanctions for conformity to

organizational standards, or a control system (Ferris et al. 1995).

For this system of accountability to succeed, people will need clear understandings
of rewards, sanctions, and standards of performance, as well as other factors, in

order to make decisions about performance. In addition, they will need to know to
whom they are accountable. Accountability theory suggests that perceptions about

our audiences and related rewards or sanctions serve to direct decisions and effort

allocations when we face decisions or choices (Tetlock and Boettger 1989: 390).

35

Frink and
being evaluated it

They cite researct

 

their tasks and se
include the idea t
be contingent on
linked to organize
The issues
structured around
are not collocated
Sllt‘crv‘isor is at a
undefined virtual

4.
“35km. resource-5

hierarchy. Team

r .
.or example. gm

1

t .
Walgned Of a

InterHall
Dnths'
dlrlOns I ()ai
I]

Frink and Ferris (1998) define accountability as “the perceived potential of
being evaluated by someone and being answerable for decisions or actions" (1260).
They cite research that indicates that accountability affects how people approach
their tasks and set goals in the workplace. Further implications of accountability
include the idea that behavior will be reviewed and that rewards or punishments will
be contingent on that review. People conform to standards or expectations that are
linked to organizational structures of reward or sanction.

The issues of accountability can become complex for workers whose jobs are
structured around activities on teams, and this is especially true when those teams
are not collocated. Fundamental relationships may become uncertain when one’s
supervisor is at a home location and the locus of one’s duties on a project team is an
undefined virtual work site. This local versus global tension arises when goals, task
design, resources, and rewards come from different sources in the organizational
hierarchy. Team members may have trouble sorting out a clear set of expectations.
For example, goals may be set by a distant authority at a headquarters, tasks may be
designed or assigned by team leaders or project managers, while performance
evaluation and rewards may be the purview of the supervisor in the home location.
Team members may feel accountable to their team relative to interdependent tasks
(Sundstrom 1990; Shea 1987; Hackman 1987).

Internally, accountability leads to the “assessment of and response to external
conditions to gain both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, and it also implies the
efficacy of the concept of the self as an audience” (Schlenker and Weigold 1989:
28). Intrinsic rewards or sanctions, such as feelings of well-being, satisfaction with
one’s performance, or acceptance, are by implication present and serve to influence

36

responses. lndivt
especially as they
ensions betvveen

install team-based

R511 t} 2115

Edvvard Lt;
business strategies
degree that there i
its practices and st
According to Lavvl

motivate perfomtar

 

organization‘s cult
|

«-

‘lavvler 1987: 3

responses. Individuals may well experience tensions about their performance.
especially as they attempt to optimize outcomes. It appears that there may also be
tensions between the concept of individual accountability and the current drive to

install team-based work systems.

Rewards

Edward Lawler (1998) proposes that pay systems must be designed to fit
business strategies and organizational structures. “Pay systems are effective to the
degree that there is alignment among the organization's core values, its process, and
its practices and structures” (Mohrman. Galbraith, and Lawler 1998: 288).
According to Lawler (1998: 293) pay systems have demonstrated that they can
motivate performance, learning, and development. In addition, they impact the
organization’s culture and help to “reinforce and define the organization’s structure”
(Lawler 1987: 255; Mohrman, McGrath, and Lawler 1998: 294). The reward
systems of organizations will need to be designed to support the work of dispersed
teams. Unfortunately, “evolving team settings are trapped within a reward system
that was designed for a different kind of organizational logic” (Mohrman, Cohen,
and Mohrman 1995: 230). Mohrman, Cohen, and Mohrman (1995) found that there
was wide variation in reward practices across firms, but that the more people were
rewarded for individual performance, the worse their team performance was. Team
performance rewards. on the other hand. had lead to better team performance and
better business unit performance. The teams in question in this example appear to
be collocated teams. When the locus of rewards systems is dispersed teams. the

issues become more complex. For example, how do transnational corporations

37

establish global p
administered?
Proehl (1h

Organllall
repercussit I
serious clts
accountahi.
explore \M:
systems an
performanc

 

 

There appe
I

especially for glor

:1998) suggest:
The dit‘t‘ere
base pav is
company
the job the'
formal. mo
did jobs (1

Th ‘ u
e assumption ht

Hoyt

ever. there \v

"THU. .
a]. This Gnu]

ll ageman
Individ
uals
and h.
a
5.3313 “
‘ ' 1n Sludie

reiall()n~ '
. 5hr
p bC‘IU, Q.

ind'i-Cat
E that IT‘Vin
4.3231“

21 m'
lxed
n.

“time it h

establish global pay systems so everyone is paid the same, and how is such a system
administered?

Proehl (1996) offers advice from her paper on cross-functional teams:

Organizational leaders need to clearly identify the rewards and

repercussions for achieving (or not) the team's purpose. One of the

serious challenges with cross-functional teams is to establish

accountability for team performance. Organizational leaders need to

explore ways to connect team participation with existing reward

systems and/or to develop alternative systems for rewarding team

performance (Proehl 1996: 23).

There appear to be few, if any, pay structures that have been created
especially for global teams, although they may yet develop. Crandell and Wallace
(1998) suggest:

The differences between traditional and virtual workplaces regarding

base pay is that a traditional company pays the job and a virtual

company pays the person. The virtual workplace pays people not for

the job they hold, but for the role they must play. The role is less

formal, more flexible, and overlaps much more with other roles than

did jobs (164).

The assumption here is that the entire set of duties is now in a virtual mode.
However, there will be many people who have jobs that are mixed. traditional and
virtual. This could pose a problem.

Wageman (1995) warns that mixed rewards. in this instance “half provided to
individuals and half to the team, emerge as the most common error in reward system
design.” In studies of autonomous teams, Wageman (1995, 1997) has looked at the
relationship between task design and interdependence and rewards. Findings
indicate that trying to introduce team incentives for interdependent tasks is best not
done in a mixed manner, since “mixed rewards send mixed signals to the team and

undermine its ability to operate as an effective unit” (1995: 165). In subsequent

38

work. she reports-
than having a dir

Collective
perform \\
members ~
enhance it”
are elicitet
\Vork des:
experience
performartci

 

Wageman recomt‘.

_ 1
companies should
System of interde;

missing. and it dc

O‘Hara-De

L“ l

work, she reports a link between reward outcomes and individual motivation rather
than having a direct effect on group behavior.

Collective rewards helped motivate highly interdependent groups to

perform well, whereas rewards for individual excellence energized

members of independent groups. demonstrating that outcomes either
enhance or undermine motivation for the kinds of work behaviors that

are elicited by the task. The pivot, then, is how the work is structured.

Work design shapes individuals’ preferences. their behavior. how they

experience their rewards. and the impact of those rewards on their

performance (1997: 58).

Wageman recommends that in those jobs where cooperative behavior is essential.
companies should design the job so that it is interdependent, then create a support
system of interdependent rewards. The details that are critical to pay systems are
missing, and it does not appear that there are clear answers to this problem.

O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen (1994) offer advice for the cross-cultural
setting. “Individual rewards for performance are not particularly motivating in
cultures that put a high value on working for the good of the group. A range of
reward systems may be necessary in many cross-cultural situations” (60).

So it appears that team pay structures for dispersed teams would need to be
connected to what team members actually do and maintain equity across all the
members of the team at all home locations. This raises questions about the pay
differential between the dispersed team member and either other team members or
co-workers in home locations, which location administers the pay system, what the
criteria for success are. and whether the criteria apply to individuals or teams. One

central question this raises is: why. in the absence of properly designed reward

systems, are virtual teams performing? No clear answers to these questions seem to

39

be available. alth-

 

group inCt’leeS

Diversity

Research in
it} mixed finding“
that. in spite of it:
constitutes di\ ersi

Nonethele:
lt is inherent in t
created by combi
combination of r
53388 of skills at
be different or s

members ensure

“fill 35 a mix 0

t1996) explain

cramming
b C COT-11p.

be available, although Wageman’s (1995, 1997) findings suggest that task design

group incentives may be critical.

Diversity

Research on the effects of diversity in organizations has been characterized
by mixed findings according to Guzzo and Dickson (1996). These authors conclude
that, in spite of its recent popularity, there is little consensus abouteither what
constitutes diversity or how it affects performance (331).

Nonetheless diversity is a fundamental element of globally dispersed teams.
It is inherent in the nature of these teams that they exist in different settings and are
created by combining a variety of people. There can be no formula for the perfect
combination of people for every team. because each team’s task will help define the
types of skills and expertise needed. The people who have the necessary skills will
be different or similar according to need and availability. Dispersion of team
members ensures that there will be a variety of races, genders, and nationalities, as
well as a mix of skills, talents, and abilities on any one team. Milliken and Martins
(1996) explain that the changing nature of multinational work as well as the
changing composition of the work force will increase the frequency with which
diverse people will interact. They highlight an emerging understanding of diversity
that fits the context of global teams:

The term diversity often provokes intense emotional reactions from

people, who, perhaps, have come to associate the word with ideas

such as “affirmative action” and “hiring quotas”; yet it is a word that

simply means “variety” or a “point or respect in which things differ”

(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1993, and
Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language 1992) (402).

40

   
   
 
   

The catcl:
workplaces is tl‘.
heterogeneity ha
and Graen 19971
social integration
l998t On the ot
greater creativity
other vvords. thet
research was do]
an actual \vorkp
done with virtu;
13°“? illyersity
”legit"- In a.

describing h -

\l‘
Jachsm‘

ob~ .
sen able. \\'

backgmmd .

Hart-134

\ \

sliIlECe IEVCI

The catch is that this same variety that is fast becoming a central element of
work places is the source of some confusion among researchers. Variety or
heterogeneity has been named as the source of barriers to team effectiveness (Baugh
and Graen 1997) and has been negatively associated with lower levels of “group
social integration” (O’Reilly, Caldwell, and Barnett 1989; Harrison. Price, and Bell
1998). On the other hand McLeod, Lobel, and Cox (1996) see variety as driving
greater creativity in group problem solving (McLeod. Lobel, and Cox 1996). In
other words, there is great ‘diversity’ among research findings. Whether this
research was done in an experimental setting (McLeod, Lobel. and Cox 1996) or in
an actual workplace (Watson, Kumar, and Michaelson 1993), much of “it was not
done with virtual or globally dispersed teams. However, recent research on work
group diversity seems to indicate that there are new ways to appraise the impact of
diversity. In addition, researchers are examining the nature of diversity and
describing it in very different ways.

Jackson (1992, 1995) describes diversity as being both observable and
underlying. That is, certain characteristics such as race, age, and gender are
observable, while other characteristics, such as education level and functional
background, are not observable.

Harrison, Price, and Bell (1998) describe some of the same attributes as
surface level (race, age, and gender) or deep level (attitudes. beliefs, values). These
distinctions are important, because these factors affect how people in work groups
interact. The study points to a shift, over time, in the degree of importance of these
two types of characteristics. Surface level characteristics diminish in importance as
work group members continue to interact, while dissimilarity in deep-level attitudinal

4t

characteristics. 5'
impacts group I"

Yet anotl:
[1999). These a.
to the work bein:
characteristic mi:
especially import.
related to experie
and Caldvvell 1‘)"
Characteristics st;
330“ 8 person In
1990; 3). ln addi

“Exposure to oppt

 

a- '
bald, delve into is

Froblems and alte

The ide

a thl

cu,
LIsnhardt. and \’i

ll permeable chara

’1

J ‘ -
Ebeneficial to pt

characteristics, such as job satisfaction or organizational commitment, increasingly
impacts group relationships.

Yet another set of categories is advanced by Pelled, Eisenhardt, and Xin
(1999). These authors describe diverse characteristics in terms of their relationship
to the work being performed. Job relatedness is the factor that decides whether a
characteristic might be more likely to lead to task conflict in a group. Two
especially important factors, functional background and tenure with the company, are
related to experience and knowledge. which are critical for cognitive tasks (Ancona
and Caldwell 1992; Milliken and Martins 1996; Pelled, Eisenhardt, and Xin 1999).
Characteristics such as functional background are permeable or easily altered to
allow a person to move from one category to another (Pelled, Eisenhardt, and Xin
1999: 3). In addition, task conflict may have a positive effect on performance.
“Exposure to opposing points of view encourages group members to gather new
data, delve into issues more deeply, and develop a more complete understanding of
problems and alternative solutions” (Pelled, Eisenhardt, and Xin 1999: 11).

The idea that “different types of diversity have different effects” (Pelled,
Eisenhardt, and Xin 1999: 16) is most interesting when applied to dispersed teams.
If permeable characteristics, such as functional background and years with the firm,
are beneficial to performance in complex tasks, then diversity in global teams may
be a driver rather than an obstacle. Pelled, Eisenhardt, and Xin (1999) tested job
routineness as well and found that when jobs were quite routine, task conflict was
more likely to increase where functional background was diverse.

Table 2.3 summarizes the categories described above, with the addition of
national origin to the “Surface Level, Observable or Low in Job Relatedness and

42

   
   
   
  

less Permeable"
underlying. or “1
diversity charact.
categories. \atit
the ethnicity is p
characteristic. sin

experience may v

Table 2.3: C om;

\

 

I
fl

Sllrface Level.

I Race
l.\

DEQp LEVQL [
Educatimal b:

D ~ .
.rotessrona] O,

 

Less Permeable” group and depth of international experience in the deep level.
underlying. or “Higher in Job Relatedness and More Permeable” group. The
diversity characteristics in global teams must also consider these international
categories. National origin is decided at birth; although citizenship can be changed.
the ethnicity is permanent. Depth of international experience is a permeable
characteristic, since a person may acquire international experience, and having this

experience may well enhance skills and attitudes in the workplace.

Table 2.3: Comparison of Diversity Characteristics

 

Surface Level, Observable, or Low in Job-Relatedness and Less Permeable

 

Race

 

Gender

 

Age

 

National Origin

 

Deep Level, Underlying, or Higher in Job Relatedness and More Permeable

 

Educational background

 

Professional or functional background

 

Depth of experience in firm

 

Depth of international experience

 

 

 

Diversity may also be present in terms of a variety of cultures. The most
obvious type of culture is ethnic but there are also organizational cultures,
professional cultures, and functional cultures that may be present in work places or
workgroups. O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen (1994) focus their work on the new

multicultural global workplace. Hofstede (1997) contributes to the study of cross-

43

\

culturalism in 1
culture. All of
team and may ‘
type of culture
members. Hofs
programs may
O‘Hara-I.
Reed Hall \\ hen
Halls (1989) dra‘

storing. and prou

.q I“.
Halts computer 1

primary social or

:ncluding professi

Schein ( l 0

definition of oruar
The culture
asic assun
external ad-
enOUgh 10
members a

t .
056 probl

     
  
  

Elf? ' -
I'.’

culturalism in organizations. while Schein (1991) offers insights into organizational
culture. All of these types of culture may be present in the operation of a global
team and may well be essential to understanding how these teams perform. Every
type of culture has values, norms, and patterns of behavior that it instills in its
members. Hofstede (1997) calls this ‘layers of culture’ and warns that these ‘mental
programs’ may not all be in harmony (10).

O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen (1994) draw on Edward T. Hall and Mildred
Reed Hall when they discuss the cultures in a workplace (38). The analogy that the
Halls (1989) draw is one that describes culture “as a system for creating, sending.
storing, and processing information.” much the same as a computer (179). The
Halls’ computer metaphor has three layers: physical bodies are the hardware. the
primary social or national culture is the operating system; and work cultures.
including professional and corporate cultures. are the software applications.

Schein (1991) is most helpful when he provides a thoughtful discussion and
definition of organizational culture.

The culture of a group can now be defined as [a] pattern of shared

basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of

external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well

enough to be considered valid and therefore, to be taught to new

members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to

those problems (12).
Organizations learn these cultures through the efforts of the leadership to create and
maintain a culture that most supports the objectives of the leader and the
organization. Corporate culture is a tool that the organization uses and can change

as competitive or economic conditions surrounding the organization unfold (O’Hara-

Devereaux and Johansen 1994: 44).

44

   
    
  
  
  

Learned
behaviors. 0’”
they state that "
values and beha'
and ethnic {3011}
they tind great 8
Nigeria and Bra;
disciplines. in at
Engineers) that
The authors sug
development ot
values among 5

C ombin
’oere foretold 1
Work teams th
This may not
(3110.115 layers

an .
d “gamma

st 3 .'
1101\an in

the ~

Learned corporate and professional cultures can shape and reinforce
behaviors. O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen (1994) make an important point when
they state that “Professional cultures offer common ground globally. since their
values and behaviors are often similar across the larger boundaries of nationalities
and ethnic groups” (44). They use an example that is very apt for this study when
they find great similarity between the professional values of electrical engineers in
Nigeria and Brazil. These values are reinforced by educational and training
disciplines, in addition to professional structures (such as the Society for Automotive
Engineers) that promote professional values as well as growth and development.
The authors suggest that this similarity of professional culture may mirror the
development of global patterns of functional cultures. such as a convergence of
values among global managers (46).

Combining the idea of professional culture with the positive outcomes that
were foretold by Pelled, Eisenhart. and Xin (1999), it may well be that for global
work teams the unifying factor may be shared professional or functional knowledge.
This may not be in a dominant sense but rather in an interest-based sense. The
various layers of culture may coexist with the proper combination of people, task,
and organizational support. Hofstede (1997) puts it nicely: “The principle of
surviving in a multicultural world is that one does not need to think, feel, and act in
the same way in order to agree on practical issues and to cooperate” (237).

This is in contrast to research proposed by Kirkman and Shapiro (1997) that
investigates resistance to the implementation of team-based work systems that results
from cultural values. In particular. the authors suggest that there is resistance to
goal setting, self evaluation, and self management among people from certain

45

’s

cultures. Tht.

effectiveness 01
Kirkman and St
tested.

Recent rt
support for a Hit
values of indivic
productivity. and
report:

Our tindir

diversity .'
culture. m
to categor
common,
distinctive
Elf." also found ‘
'Jtat "benefits \vil'
incr

easing the H1?
4": ' '
titterent identity *
r" . -
effectiveness

Team pert;

 

nUm‘

Sim“ I
tings about em

Gladstein 1984- S

‘ t
it'-
“:th
"esm

an 1995).

 

 

cultures. This resistance to management initiatives may possibly lower the
effectiveness of initiatives that try to introduce self-managing work teams (735).
Kirkman and Shapiro were offering a theoretical approach that they had not yet
tested.

Recent research by Chatman, Polzer, Barsade. and Neale (1998) offers some
support for a more pragmatic approach. The authors studied how organizational
values of individualism or collectivism interacted with “social interaction, conflict.
productivity, and perceptions of creativity” among a group of MBA students. They
report:

Our findings suggest that the purported benefits of demographic

diversity are more likely to emerge in organizations that, through their

culture, make organizational membership salient and encourage people

to categorize one another as having the organization’s interests in

common, rather than those that emphasize individualism and

distinctiveness among members (748).

They also found evidence to support the Pelled, Eisenhardt, and Xin (1999) finding
that “benefits will accrue from demographic heterogeneity in organizations by

increasing the variance in perspectives and approaches to work that members of

different identity groups can bring” (Chatman et al. 1998).

Effectiveness

Team performance effectiveness is a much-discussed topic in the team
literature. A number of scholars have reported both theoretical as well as empirical
findings about effectiveness (Hackman 1987; Cohen, Ledford, and Spreitzer 1996;
Gladstein 1984; Sundstrom, DeMeuse, and Futrell 1990; Cohen and Bailey 1997;

Wageman 1995). Team effectiveness has been measured against numerous

46

"blue col
CddoeH

ll
numerous
Even am
11997): (..
atd Snyd
if?! muc
communit
dill? disci

Mt-
SliCCegS ft
“with tl
'iUCSIlOnS
i’mdut‘rs r

standards, including productivity, costs, group attitudes, and knowledge creation.
Studies have been done measuring effectiveness in work teams as varied as those in
“blue collar” jobs (Wageman 1995). product development teams (Ancona and
Caldwell 1992), and knowledge workers (Janz 1997).

While performance effectiveness in collocated teams has been the focus of
numerous empirical studies, performance effectiveness in virtual teams has not.
Even among those who are studying global teams, such as Lipnack and Stamps
(1997); O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen (1994); Fisher and Fisher (1998): Duarte
and Snyder (1999); and McDermott, Brawley, and Waite (1998), the emphasis is still
very much on how to start a virtual team, train the members, facilitate
communication, and build solid collaborative team work. There has as yet been very
little discussion of what makes these teams effective.

McDermott, Brawley, and Waite (1998) offer a chapter on measures of
success for world-class teams in which they offer an exercise to allow teams to
develop their own metrics. After completing the exercise, readers are left with three
questions that are cited as “key to measuring the success of the team”: 1) Do team
products meet stakeholders’ expectation? 2) Is team competence increasing? and 3)
Are individual team members learning and developing through their team work?
These are the Hackman effectiveness measures applied to virtual or globally
dispersed teams. It may well be that the traditional measures developed by
Hackman (1987); Gladstein (1984); Sundstrom. DeMeuse, and Futrell (1990); or
Campion, Medsker, and Higgs (1993) are the best measures of effectiveness in
virtual teams. It is also possible that other measures may have to be developed to
capture the value of dispersed teams adequately.

47

dimen
in tern

0111C Ol’l

context
dzscuss

9'“ q ‘ ..

measure:

intangibl

Cohen and Bailey (1997) “categorize effectiveness into three major
dimensions according to the team’s impact on (1) performance effectiveness assessed
in terms of quantity and quality of outputs, (2) member attitudes, and (3) behavioral
outcomes” (243). These dimensions are influenced by environmental factors. design
factors, group processes. and group psychosocial traits. This framework is complex
but flexible enough to help capture the relationships in and between the levels of
context within which teams reside. Although Cohen and Bailey do not directly
discuss dispersed teams, their framework might offer guidance with determining the
effectiveness of dispersed teams.

It is of interest that Cohen and Bailey (1997) have included both tangible
measurement categories (performance outcomes and behavioral outcomes) as well as
intangible measurement categories (member attitudes). It seems somehow important
to push measurement dimensions into more intangible areas when discussing virtual
teams, since some of what these teams need to produce is intangible. Effectiveness
has generally been measured using “some aggregation of specific. concrete, and
quantifiable accomplishments and failures” (Campbell 1977: 26). Campbell was
discussing organizational effectiveness, but as Jones (1997) states, the “theoretical
work most pertinent to the measurement of team performance originated in
organizational effectiveness theory” (116).

Specific, concrete accomplishments or failures cannot be the only measures
of team performance effectiveness. This is especially true for globally dispersed
teams in which the team members must create trust. generate innovative ideas and
solutions, and operate in virtual relationships. Effectiveness must also be measured
using intangible metrics. This point is driven home by authors like Solomon (1995),

48

\th S
variety
market
dissim:
identift
current
expertis

tBiacklc

who says, “Global teams offer numerous benefits, including the expertise of a
variety of people, deeper insights into the requirements of the international
marketplace, and the synergy needed to harmonize the differing perspectives of
dissimilar cultures and business functions” (51). In this set of benefits, Solomon
identifies only intangible outcomes. This emphasis on intangibles reflects the
current need for greater development and inclusion of employee knowledge and
expertise in each company in order to meet the rapid changes in the marketplace
(Blackler 1995; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995).

In this study, the company has two metrics in place for measuring the
effectiveness of the team: participation and percent of match.2 Both measure
specific, concrete elements of the team’s performance. Interestingly, the most
important component of each measure may well be the intangible elements. For
example, participation is a pure measure of how often a team member is present
during teleconferences or at face-to-face meetings. It is a very straightforward
measure that is compiled and cited as a percentage; i.e., the team had 95%
participation. The goal is 100% participation. This is a tangible, objective measure.
Participation is also absolutely tied to building relationships among team members,
drawing on the deep base of shared knowledge that resides in the team members,
and creating new solutions or knowledge from the collaborative efforts of the team.
These are all intangibles that derive from counting the tangible instances of

participation.

 

2 These are defined and discussed in Chapter 4: “The Plan.”

49

The com
commonimtion
goal is to becon
wily from Inc;
and costs due 11‘
my tangible mt

Itnmxledge and 1:

 

 

 

Summary

So it seen
together. The Ir;
applied and “ill
dit'ersity of the I
appear non-routi:
the team task in;
measures of effe
some of the com

Y
01‘

eAUbaH}. Cl

The company also measures percent of match or the amount of
commonization reached in each location in the areas of equipment and process. The
goal is to become 100% matched in every operation, so products can be moved
easily from location to location, economies of scale might be active in purchasing.
and costs due to multiple manufacturing methodologies can be reduced. This is a
very tangible measure as well and yet it offers great intangible assets around shared

knowledge and greater facilitation of problem solving across sites.

Summary

So it seems in this study that several threads in the literature have come
together. The traditional model of team effectiveness (Hackman 1987) can be
applied and will help to discover some aspects of the team's performance. The
diversity of the team may help to increase performance, since the tasks of the team
appear non-routine (Pelled, Eisenhardt, and Xin 1999). The interdependent design of
the team task may contribute to effectiveness (Wageman 1995). There may be other
measures of effectiveness, tangible and intangible, that will help to add clarity to
some of the complex issues of organizational context. In as yet largely unexplored
territory, the ‘map’ of where to go and what to study is not completely clear.
Although this study will not be able to explore all areas of this phenomenon of
globally dispersed teams, the goal is to make the path a little clearer and to set up

some further avenues of investigation for others.

50

 

Ancona D. G. 2
Activity and

Baugh. S. G. an
Composition
Group and (

Blackler. F. (19‘
and Interpret

Bloor. G. and P,
Organization

Perspectives
Pennings. Sn

Cdmpion. M., A
“Wk Team
ersonncl P.

Grow: Chara.
\\ ork Group]

01mm J. A.
Different V61 ‘

rganlmtlond
czence Quat-

Chjdamharam‘ I.
COmpmer SU
Faee.~to.}race "

Cohen. S

SelfMan;

 

G.
gin:

 

RESOURCES CITED

Ancona, D. G. and D. F. Caldwell (1992). “Bridging the Boundary: External
Activity and Performance in.” Administrative Science Quarterly 37 (4):634—665.

Baugh, S. G. and G. B. Graen (1997). “Effects of Team Gender and Racial
Composition on Perceptions of Team Performance in Cross-Functional Teams.”
Group and Organization Management 22 (3): 366—384.

Blackler, F. (1995). “Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview
and Interpretation.” Organization Studies 16 (6): 1021—1046.

Bloor, G. and P. Dawson (1994). “Understanding Professional Culture in
Organizational Context.” Organization Studies 15 (2): 275-295.

Campbell, J. P. (1977). On the Nature of Organizational Effectiveness. New
Perspectives on Organizational Eflectiveness. P. S. Goodman and J. M.
Pennings. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers: 13—55.

Campion, M., A., E. M. Papper, and G. J. Medsker (1996). “Relations Between
Work Team Characteristics and Effectiveness: A Replication and Extension.”
Personnel Psychology 49: 429—451.

Campion, M. A., G. J. Medsker, and C. A. Higgs (1993). “Relations Between Work
Group Characteristics and Effectiveness: Implications for Designing Effective
Work Groups.” Personnel Psychology 46: 823—849.

Chatman, J. A., J. T. Polzer, S. G. Barsade, and M. A. Neale (1998). “Being
Different yet Feeling Similar: The Influence of Demographic Composition and

Organizational Culture on Work Processes and Outcomes.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 43 (4): 749—780.

Chidambaram, L. and B. Jones (1993). “Impact of Communication Medium and
Computer Support on Group Perceptions and Performance: A Comparison of
Face-to-Face and Dispersed Meetings.” MIS Quarterly 17 (4): 465—487.

Cohen, S. G. and D. E. Bailey (1997). “What Makes Teams Work: Group
Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite.” Journal of

Management 23 (3): 239—291.

Cohen, S. G., G. E. Ledford Jr., and G. M. Spreitzer (1996). “A Predictive Model of
Self-Managing Work Team Effectiveness.” Human Relations 49 (5): 643—677.

51

 

Crammn. C
Work T
of Mana

Crandall. F.
ll brlp/dt
AMA C O.

Cutcher-Gersl
lshino. \l'
and A. \l'

Japanese .

Daft R. L. an.
Media Riel

Dat‘idow, \l', f
and Retrial
Business.

D3113. S. M ap
Economy. R

Denison D R.
Functional 7
[Magi "It )2!

Duane. D. L. an
Essex--8355 j

Fills G R T
Accountabili t

lackuen Pu

lek D D
GOal
12$

 

and
gsetting
”~1283

Gladstein, D

 

fictiteneSS

GU11} SW1 1

 

Crarnton, C. D. and S. S. Webber (1999). “The Impact of Geographic Dispersion on
Work Teams: A Sociotechnical Perspective.” George Mason University, School
of Management. Unpublished paper.

Crandall, F ., N. and M. J. Wallace (1998). Work and Rewards in the Virtual
Workplace: a "New Deal ” for Organizations and Employees. New York,
AMACOM.

Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., M. Nitta, B. Barrett, N. Belhedi, S. Chow, T. Inaba, I.
Ishino, W.-J. Lin, M. Moore, W. Mothersell, J. Palthe, S. Ramanand, M. Strolle,
and A. Wheaton (1998). Knowledge-Driven Work: Unexpected Lessons fi'om
Japanese and US. Work Practices. New York, Oxford University Press.

Daft, R. L. and R. H. Lengel (1986). “Organizational Information Requirements,
Media Richness and Structural Design.” Management Science 32 (5): 554-571.

Davidow, W. H. and M. S. Malone (1992). The Virtual Corporation: Structuring
and Revitalizing the Corporation for the 21st Century. New York, Harper
Business.

Davis, S. M. and C. Meyer (1998). Blur: the Speed of Change in the Connected
Economy. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.

Denison, D. R., S. L. Hart, and J. A. Kahn (1996). “From Chimneys to Cross-
Functional Teams: Developing and Validating a diagnostic Model.” Academy of
Management Journal 39 (4): 1005—1024.

Duarte, D. L. and N. T. Snyder (1999). Mastering Virtual Teams. San Francisco,
Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

Ferris, G. R., T. R. Mitchell, P. J. Canavan, D. D. Frink, and H. Hopper (1995).
Accountability in Human Resources Systems. Handbook of Human Resource
Management. G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen and D. T. Barnum. Oxford, UK,
Blackwell Publishers: 175—196.

Frink, D. D. and G. R. Ferris (1998). “Accountability, Impression Management, and
Goal Setting in the Performance Evaluation Process.” Human Relations 51 (10):
1259—1283.

Gladstein, D. L. (1984). “Groups in Context: A Model of Task Group
Effectiveness.” Administrative Science Quarterly 29: 499—517.

Gully, S. M., D. J. Devine, and D. J. Whitney (1995). “A Meta-Analysis of

Cohesion and Performance: Effects of Level of Analysis and Task
Interdependence.” Small Group Research 26 (4): 497—520.

52

 

Guzzo. R- A'
011 perforn
47:307‘3:

Hackman '1' R

Bctha1‘l()r' .

Hackmm ‘1' R
and Group
Advances 1'
Academic 1

Harrison. 13- 5“
Demograph.
\l'ork Gr 0U}

Hedlund. J .. D-
Computer-X
Organizatim

Hofstede. G. t l '
McGraw-l Ii 1

Hollingshead. »\
Review of t1
_ rganizatior

46~78.

Hunter. J. and 1\

ommzmicatl

 

Jackson. S E
Diversity in
1"? Organiwt.

<04~26l

Jackson. s. E i .
. l
M“aging ar

- lorchel. l

13:11 3.1). J (
Etfectivenes‘g
OnteXIUal S.

 

Guzzo, R. A. and M. W. Dickson (1996). Teams in Organizations: Recent Research
on Performance and Effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology. Palo Alto, CA.
47: 307-338.

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The Design of Work Teams. Handbook of Organizational
Behavior. J. W. Lorsch. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall: 315-342.

Hackman, J. R. and C. G. Morris (1975). Group Tasks, Group Interaction Process,
and Group Performance Effectiveness: A Review and Proposed Integration.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. L. Berkowitz. New York,
Academic Press. 8: 45-99.

Harrison, D. A., K. H. Price, and M. P. Bell (1998). “Beyond Relational
Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on
Work Group Cohesion.” Academy of Management Journal 41 (1): 96—107.

Hedlund, J., D. R. Ilgen, and J. R. Hollenbeck (1998). “Decision Accuracy in
Computer-Mediated versus Face-to-Face Decision-Making Teams.”
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76 (1): 30—47.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York,
McGraw-Hill.

Hollingshead, A. B. and J. E. McGrath (1995). Computer-assisted Groups: A Critical
Review of the Empirical Research. Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in
Organizations. R. A. Guzzo and E. Salas. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers:

46—78.

Hunter, J. and M. Allen (1992). “Adaptation to Electronic Mail.” Journal of Applied
Communication (August): 254—274.

Jackson, S., E., K. E. May, and K. Whitney (1995). Understanding the Dynamics of
Diversity in Decision-Making Teams. Team Effectiveness and Decision Making
in Organizations. R. A. Guzzo and E. Salas. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass:
204—261.

Jackson, S. E. (1991). Team Composition in Organizational Settings: Issues in
Managing an Increasingly Diverse Workforce. Group Process and Productivity.
S. Worchel, W. Wood and S. Simpson. Newbury, CA, Sage: 138-171.

Janz, B. D., J. A. Colquitt, and R. A. Noe (1997). “Knowledge Worker Team

Effectiveness: the Role of Autonomy, Interdependence, Team Development, and
Contextual Support Variables.” Personnel Psychology 50 (4): 877—905.

53

 

Jarvenpaa. S. 1k
Antecedem
Informal/m.

lanenpaa S. 1
Virtual Ten
hup; mm

Jones. S. (199,"
Advances it
Issues. .\1. ."
Press. Inc. ~

Katzenbach. J.
Higlr-Pcrfm'

Kelley. K. and l
T170013“. and
Amsterdam.

 

 

King. N- R. E.
Mediated [m
Innovating I“

Klmean. B L ;

EmP103’ee Rc
“brk Team

Kline. T, j. B“ ,
Contributors

Wilma H. F.

C.
elations 3 3

Rial-1163‘ G A (I
13‘] '

Lt)

Y .
Late. J. and E. \‘
(”Mahdi lo '7 .

l- .
“filler. E. E (19
Or . . '
w - Sunkfllinnu
~3§\')71

S

L-
”whee. P

Jarvenpaa, S. L., K. Knoll, and D. E. Leidner (1998). “Is Anybody Out There?
Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams.” Journal of Management
Information Systems 14 (4): 29—64.

Jarvenpaa, S. L. and D. E. Leidner (1998). “Communication and Trust in Global
Virtual Teams.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication:
http://www. ascusc. org/jcmc/voI3/issue4/jarvenpaa. html

Jones, S. (1997). Team Performance Measurement: Theoretical and Applied Issues.
Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams: Team Implementation
Issues. M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson and S. T. Beyerlein. Greenwich, CT. JAI
Press, Inc. 4: 115—139.

Katzenbach, J. R. and D. K. Smith (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the
High-Performance Organization. New York, Harper Collins.

Kelley, K. and D. Streeter (1992). The Roles of Gender in Organizations. Issues,
Theory, and Research in Industrial Organizational Psychology. K. Kelley.
Amsterdam, Holland, Elsevier Science Publishing: 285—337.

King, N., R. E. Rice, A. Majchrzak, A. Malhotra, and S. Ba (1998). Computer-
Mediated Inter-Organizational Knowledge-Sharing: Insights from a Virtual Team
Innovating Using a Collaborative Tool. Submitted to MIS Quarterly.

Kirkman, B. L. and D. L. Shapiro (1997). “The Impact of Cultural Values on
Employee Resistance to Teams: Toward a Model of Globalized Self-Managing
Work Team Effectiveness.” Academy of Management Review 22 (3): 730—758.

Kline, T. J. B., M. MacLeod, and J. McGrath (1996). “Team Effectiveness:
Contributors and Hindrances.” Human Systems Management 15: 183—186.

Kolodny, H. F. and M. N. Kiggundu (1980). “Towards the Development of a
Sociotechnical Systems Model in Woodlands Mechanical Harvesting.” Human
Relations 33 (9): 623—631.

Kraines, G. A. (1996). “Hierarchy’s Bad Rap.” Journal of Business Strategy 17 (4):
13—13.

Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral
Participation. New York, Cambridge University Press.

Lawler, E. E. (1987). The Design of Effective Reward Systems. The Handbook of
Organizational Behavior. J. W. Lorsch. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall:
255—271.

Lawrence, P. R. and J. W. Lorsch (1967). Diflerentiation and Integration.

54

Liedtka. J. (19‘
Journal of

lipnack. J. ancI
Organimtn

 

locke. E. A. 11'.
Performant

)lankin. D.. S.
Fulfilling I)
School Pres

McGrath. J. E.

McLeod. P. L..
Creativity ii

Meyerson. D.. 1
Groups. Tm
Kramer and

 

Milliken. F_ J' E
L'nderstandi;
Academy ”.7

.‘thnnan. S. :\
based ()rgw
Bass Inc. Pt

Xiohrman‘ S . ‘4\

.\3d
let, D. A. a
ga’ll:all‘(.n
N0“ _
aka. I. and
nn'ersitv F
0.
Hara‘DeV-

’ u

Liedtka, J. (1999). “Linking Competitive Advantage with Communities of Practice.”
Journal of Management Inquiry 8 (1): 5—16.

Lipnack, J. and J. Stamps (1997). Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time, and
Organizations with Technology. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Locke, E. A. and G. P. Latham (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task
Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

Mankin, D., S. G. Cohen, and T. K. Bikson (1996). Teams and Technology:
Fulfilling the Promise of the New Organization. Boston, Harvard Business
School Press.

McGrath, J. E. ( 1964). Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction. New York, Holt.

McLeod, P. L., S. A. Lobel, and T. H. Cox Jr. (1996). “Ethnic diversity and
Creativity in Small Groups.” Small Group Research 27 (2): 248—264.

Meyerson, D., K. E. Weick, and R. M. Kramer (1996). Swift Trust and Temporary
Groups. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. R. M.
Kramer and T. R. Tyler. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications: 166—195.

Milliken, F. J. and L. L. Martins (1996). “Searching for Common Threads:
Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups.”
Academy of Management Review 21 (2): 402—433.

Mohrman, S. A., S. J. Cohen, and A. M. Mohrman Jr. (1995). Designing T eam-
based Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work. San Francisco, Jossey-
Bass Inc. Publishers.

Mohrman, S. A., J. R. Galbraith, and E. E. Lawler (1998). Tomorrow ’s
Organization: Crafting Winning Capabilities in a Dynamic World. San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Nadler, D. A. and M. L. Tushman (1997). Competing by Design: The Power of
Organizational Architecture. New York, Oxford University Press, Inc.

Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How
Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York, Oxford
University Press.

O’Hara-Devereaux, M. and R. Johansen (1994). Globalwork: Bridging Distance,
Culture, and Time. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

55

o‘Reilly 111. C
Demographl
anl’lt’rly '

Pearce. 1. A- 1‘
Regulating

Proehl. R. A' 1
Headache?“

Schein. E- H- 1
8,5, Publis

Schlenker. 8- 1‘
Impression

Hillsdale. .\

Shea G. P. an ‘
Personnel u
Greenwich.

Solomon. C. M
Journal 74

 

Steiner. l. D. (1

Sundstrom. E
and Effectix'l

Tetlock, P. E a

Dilution Eff
388x398.

O’Reilly III, C. A., D. F. Caldwell, and W. P. Barnett (1989). “Work Group
Demography, Social Integration, and Turnover.” Administrative Science
Quarterly 34: 21—37.

Pearce, J. A. I. and E. C. Ravlin (I987). “The Design and Activation of Self-
Regulating Work Groups.” Human Relations 40 (11): 751—760.

Proehl, R. A. (1996). “Cross-Functional Teams: A Panacea or Just Another
Headache?” Supervision 57 (6): 6—9.

Schein, E. H. (1991). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco. Jossey-
Bass Publishers.

Schlenker, B. R. and M. F. Weigold (1989). Self Identification and Accountability.
Impression Management in the Organization. R. Giacolone and P. Rosenfeld.
Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum: 21—43.

Shea, G. P. and R. A. Guzzo (1987). Groups as Human Resources. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management. K. M. Rowland and G. R. Ferris.
Greenwich, CT, JAI Press. 5: 323—356.

Solomon, C. M. (1995). “Global Teams: The Ultimate Collaboration.” Personnel
Journal 74 (7): 70—75.

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group Process and Productivity. New York, Academic Press.

Sundstrom, E., K. P. DeMeuse, and D. Futrell (1990). “Work Teams: Applications
and Effectiveness.” American Psychologist 45 (2): 120—133.

Tetlock, P. E. and R. Boettger (1989). “Accountability: A Social Magnifier of the
Dilution Effect.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology September:
388-398.

Townsend, A. M., S. M. DeMarie, and A. R. Hendrickson (1998). “Virtual Teams:
Technology and the Workplace of the Future.” The Academy of Management
Executive (August) 12 (3): 17—30.

Wageman, R. (1995). “Interdependence and Group Effectiveness.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 40 (1): 145—81.

Wardell, C. (1998). “The Art of Managing Virtual Teams: Eight Key Lessons.”
Harvard Management Update November: 4—5.

Warkentin, M. E., L. Sayeed, et al. (1997). “Virtual Teams versus Face-to-face
Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-Based Conference System.” Decision
Sciences 28 (4): 975—996.

56

ll'eiclt. K. E. 1
Publication

Yeatts. D. E. ..
Thousand 1'

 

 

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
Publications.

Yeatts, D. E. and C. Hyten (1998). High-Performing Self-Managed Work Teams.
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.

57

The ma:
organizational s

dispersed teams

  
  
 

team? The rest
Lhroughout. “it:

both methods.

 

about globally

This proj
structured inter\
Completely im‘e
aSWIM) Work 0

however. focuse

Wis that we 3.
THE)‘ Work in a

Plflbably Share a

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The main research questions in this study are: 1) What aspects of the
organizational environment are most important to successful performance in
dispersed teams? and 2) What is the impact of diversity for a globally dispersed
team? The research design calls for qualitative and quantitative elements
throughout, with the goal of giving greater validity to the study’s findings by using
both methods. This is important because the study is an attempt to generate theory
about globally dispersed teams.

This project uses primarily a case study methodology, supplemented with
structured interviews, survey instruments, and archival data in an attempt to more
completely investigate performance effectiveness in a globally dispersed team. The
research work on teams provides a rich resource for ongoing exploration. It has.
however, focused on the more traditional, collocated form of teams. These are the
teams that we see everyday, working together in an office or on an assembly line.
They work in a common home location, live in a common time zone, and most
probably share a common organizational environment. The subject of this study is
teams that are dispersed or distributed globally. The members of these teams do not
all share the same home work locations, time zones, or. in many cases, cultural

elements and environments.

58

Dispers.

 

scrutiny. 111111-
academics seek
frameworks de‘
McGrath. and (
Teams need to
supports. such .
work of dispers

Are the same el

Ca-

iscussinu dispe
Information abo
PI" the team. the

lift! ' ’
~ clfllzational SI

 

Dispersed teams have not as yet been the subject of a great deal of scholarly
scrutiny. In the absence of an accepted framework. practitioners as well as
academics seeking answers about effective team performance have relied upon the
frameworks devised for collocated teams by scholars such as Hackman, Cohen.
McGrath, and Gladstein. The value of this existing work is clear and unquestioned.
Teams need to have effective leadership, clear goals, ample resources. and structural
supports, such as rewards and training. Managers and others helping to facilitate the
work of dispersed teams must provide these essentials. However, questions remain:
Are the same essentials sufficient? Must other factors be considered when
discussing dispersed teams? Among the main alternative factors that offer additional
information about dispersed teams are the type and nature of communications used
by the team, the synchronous or asynchronous nature of the team’s interactions, the
organizational structures within which teams and team members are embedded, the
nature and impact of diversity on team performance, and the effects of geographic
dispersion.

This study begins to explore the relationships between these factors and to
build a theoretical base that will support further research on dispersed teams. Team
performance effectiveness is the dependent variable in this study; the independent
variables include rewards, diversity, accountability, mediated communication, goal
clarity, knowledge and skills, leadership, and organizational support. The model

shown in Figure 3.1 illustrates this basic research plan and analytical focus.

59

Figt

 

Rewards

 

 

 

Diversity

 

 

 

Accountability

 

 

 

Mediated
Communication

 

. Team
Goal Clarity Performance
Effectiveness

 

 

 

 

Embedded
Knowledge and
Skills

 

 

 

 

Leadership

 

 

Organizational
Support

 

 

 

Figure 3.1: Proposed Model of Team Performance Effectiveness

6O

 

 

‘fl

:0

di

re:

A combined quantitative and qualitative assessment offers a multifaceted view of
these relationships. For example, participants in the study respond in the interviews
about their opinions on a series of factors including team tasks, goals, rewards,
selection criteria, success factors, and obstacles to effective performance. Later.
these same participants offer their perceptions of many of these same factors on a
survey instrument. In this way, factors are explored in greater depth and from
several perspectives. This offers an opportunity for results to be compared and
triangulated, to give greater confidence in the results.

The goals of this study are straightforward and modest. By combining
traditional and new elements in the analysis, it is possible to add some key elements

to the current understanding of teams and their performance.

Hypotheses

As this dissertation is designed to contribute to the foundations of a theory of
dispersed teams, the following hypotheses reflect some fundamental starting points
in the research. Literature from various divergent sources is used to outline the
reasons for the direction of each hypothesis.

Hackman (1990) and Lawler (1996) argue that teams should be supported by
the development of appropriate pay systems that are designed to fit business
strategies and organizational structures. Mohrman, Cohen, and Mohrman (1995)
found wide variation in reward practices across firms, but concluded that when
people were rewarded for individual performance, their team performance worsened.
Team performance rewards on the other hand generally lead to better team
performance and better business unit performance.

61

In studies of autonomous teams, Wageman (1995, 1997) looks at the
relationship between task design and interdependence and rewards. Her findings
indicate that “collective rewards helped motivate highly interdependent groups to
perform well, whereas rewards for individual excellence energized members of
independent groups, demonstrating that outcomes either enhance or undermine
motivation” and that the key element is how work is structured. “Work design
shapes individuals’ preferences, their behavior, how they experience their rewards,
and the impact of those rewards on their performance” (1997: 58). Wageman
recommends that in those jobs where cooperative behavior is essential, companies
should design the job so that it is interdependent and then create a support system of
interdependent rewards. In cross-cultural settings the impact of rewards may be
mitigated by cultural norms that put different values on working for the good of the
group (O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen 1994: 60). In absence of clear direction,
this study proposes to test the following hypothesis:

- Hl—Reward systems designed to reward individuals will not positively

motivate dispersed team performance effectiveness.

As with rewards, there are deep disagreements over the effect of diversity
(Guzzo and Dickson 1996). The more traditional view identifies diversity as variety
in race, gender, and national origin. Variety or heterogeneity has been named as the
source of barriers to team effectiveness (Baugh and Graen 1997) and as negatively
associated with “group social integration” (O’Reilly, Caldwell, and Barnett 1989;
Harrison, Price, and Bell 1998).

Alternative views are taken by scholars such as Jackson (1991, 1995) and
Harrison, Price, and Bell (1998), who differentiate among types of diversity.

62

Jackson describes two categories as observable and underlying, while Harrison.
Price, and Bell label these attributes as surface level (race, age, and gender) or deep
level (attitudes, beliefs, values). They maintain that certain characteristics such as
race, age, and gender are observable, while other characteristics. such as education
level and functional background, are not observable. As people work together, the
importance of a category of distinction shifts: Surface-level characteristics diminish
in importance as work group members continue to interact, while dissimilarity in
deep-level attitudinal characteristics, such as job satisfaction or organizational
commitment, increasingly impacts group relationships. Pelled, Eisenhardt, and Xin
(1999) describe diverse characteristics in terms of their relationship to the work
being performed. Job relatedness is the factor that determines whether a
characteristic might be more likely to lead to task conflict in a group. Task conflict
may have a positive affect on performance: “Exposure to opposing points of view
encourages group members to gather new data. delve into issues more deeply, and
develop a more complete understanding of problems and alternative solutions” (11).

These findings lead to the idea that “different types of diversity have
different effects” (16), and this is most interesting when applied to dispersed teams.
It appears that traditional diversity, while inherent in globally dispersed teams, may
not have the negative impact originally espoused by some scholars. This study tests
the following hypothesis:

0 HZ—Diversity in race, gender, and national origin, as traditionally

defined, is positively related to team performance effectiveness.

Although all employment systems have some form of accountability in the

form of lines of accountability (Kraines 1996), dispersed teams often are accountable

63

 

 

3:

int

50

to both local and global authorities. This can be a source of tension and a barrier to
team performance effectiveness. Ferris et al. (1995) state that individuals face
internal as well as external accountabilities. Externally “in organizations,
accountability implies a system of rewards and sanctions for conformity to
organizational standards, or a control system” (176). Accountability relationships
affect how people approach their tasks and set goals in the workplace (Frink and
Ferris 1998). Further implications 'of accountability include the idea that
performance is reviewed and that rewards or punishments will be contingent on that
review. People conform to standards or expectations that are linked to
organizational structures of reward or sanction. These considerations imply the
following hypothesis:

° H3—Clear organizational lines of accountability will have a positive

effect on team performance effectiveness.

Dispersed teams rely far more on mediated communication than do collocated
teams. Lipnack and Stamps (1997) call this the use of links, defined as the use of
multiple media for boundary-crossing interactions that may evolve into trusting
relationships. While this definition may be a bit optimistic, team member
interactions and the use of communication media is a serious issue for those who are
working with virtual teams. It is much more difficult to develop interpersonal ties
of credibility and trust when communication is not face-to-face, but is mediated by
some type of electronic interface.

In their study of group cohesiveness, perceptions of group interaction process.
and satisfaction with group outcomes, Warkentin, Sayeed, and Hightower (1997)
looked at teams of undergraduates who completed a task either face-to-face or using

64

computer mediated communication systems (CMCS) in a controlled experimental
setting. The face-to-face teams reported stronger relational links on all three
variables than the teams using CMCS. The concern raised by this study is that
teams using mediated communication are not able to establish relational links that
help create trust in the team and generate satisfaction with the process.

Hollingshead and McGrath (1995) have suggested that dispersed teams might
benefit from team building face-to-face at the startup of the team so the impact of
technology might be modified. Technology can either aid or hinder a group in
developing successful patterns or processes for interaction and completion of its task.
Technology changes the group interaction and the experience of the people working
in the group. For organizations one concern may need to be whether the experience
of working on a dispersed team still allows the optimal expression of the skills each
team member brings to the job.

The issues of trust and communication are also at the core of a series of
works by Jarvenpaa, Leidner, and Knoll. This work explores the question of
whether trust can exist in virtual teams, where there is a “lack of shared social
context” (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1998: 3). The “catch” in this situation is that trust
is even more essential in virtual teams than in face-to-face teams, because it prevents
the creation of psychological distance from augmenting the effect of geographic
distance (Jarvenpaa, Knoll, and Leidner 1998: 30). Virtual teams need to pay close
attention to their communication behaviors. This study tests the following
hypothesis:

0 H4—The use of mediated forms of communication such as email and

telephone conferences rather than face-to-face communication is

negatively related to team performance effectiveness.

65

em
out

indie

opera

goat

.15 0

”151110:
plllCCSj
Slop ,-
$363ng
Eltoup'
Shared

is, ,1

“ink is

Locke and Latham (1990) report that goals are effective for individuals
because they indicate the level of performance that is acceptable. Clear goals
establish a minimum acceptable performance level, while ambiguous goals do not
indicate the range of appropriate performance. Hackman (1990) emphasizes the
importance of goal clarity for groups. In groups, ambiguity surrounding the
definition of acceptable performance may be compounded, because several goals
operate simultaneously: each team member’s individual goal, the team member‘s
goal for and within the group, and the group’s goal for and within the organization.
As O’Leary-Kelly, Martocchio, and Frink (1994) note, “In view of the existence of
these numerous and potentially inconsistent goals, it is likely that goal specificity is
also critically important to the group goal effect” (1286).

Steiner (1972) also suggested that groups are often less than maximally
effective because of such process losses as poor coordination and differing group
member perspectives concerning the correct pattern of collective action. These
process losses may be exacerbated by the condition of dispersion. The type of
group and the time period over which the goal effect is studied are also important in
assessing the generalizability of the group goal effect. Most definitions of the term
“group” suggest a collection of individuals with a shared past and an anticipated,
shared future (McGrath 1984). Dispersed teams fit McGrath’s definition and often
have “numerous and potentially inconsistent goals” (O’Leary-Kelly, Martocchio, and
Frink 1994). These considerations imply the following hypothesis:

0 H5—Close alignment and clear understanding of the shared goals of the

team (goal clarity) among members of the team and organization is
positively related to team performance effectiveness.

66

 

Sill:

Hackman (1987, 1990) establishes three criteria for work group
effectiveness: group effort, the knowledge and skill of group members, and the
appropriateness of the performance strategies the group chooses. In other words. he
states that effectiveness is based in a system that counts social and personal
interactions and decisions as critical to performance. He uses cross-training, or the
sharing of work-related knowledge and creation of interdependence, as an illustration
of the way the system reinforces these criteria (Hackman 1987).

Hackman tries to capture the process of knowledge creation or collaboration
within the group. He supports the idea that group members can learn from each
other and foster collective learning or group outcomes different from those obtained
by the individual members working alone. While collective learning is one of the
great strengths of collocated teams (Cutcher-Gershenfeld et al. 1998), it is likely that
in dispersed teams the opportunities for collective learning stretch across many
locations. In one firm with many sites. a professional or organizational culture can
develop that provides deep roots of shared knowledge.

Participation is tied to building relationships among team members, drawing
on the deep base of shared knowledge that resides in the team members, and
creating new solutions or knowledge from the collaborative efforts of the team.
Engineers (the- majority of the sample in this study) acquire, disseminate, and store
technical knowledge using knowledge management techniques such as intranet
databases and concurrent engineering (Jones and Jordan 1998). Knowledge is shared
and embedded in a dispersed team through interaction, training, professional skills

and experience, as well as through participation in groups. It provides a basis for

67

the ongoing creation of additional knowledge. This study tests the following
hypothesis:

- H6—Embedded knowledge and skills, such as a shared educational
background, professional training, or experiences among members of the
dispersed team are positively related to team performance effectiveness.

Leadership in teams has been emphasized by many researchers. Katzenbach
and Smith describe the strategic and visionary role of organizational leadership in
developing teams that perform effectively (Katzenbach and Smith 1992). The style
and skill of leaders are important elements in the motivation and direction of teams.
New and more flexible "transformational" leadership styles, such as leading the
networked organization, have become topics of study.

Group leader skills also influence effectiveness. Groups with leaders who are
more skilled at coordinating and directing group activities or at communicating with
superiors often perform more successfully than those with less skillful leaders.
Katzenbach and Smith (1993) report on a number of leader-performance
relationships. Langfred and Shanley (1997) report that while “group leader skills
may help preserve group performance in a status quo situation, they will also enable
the group to survive and prosper during major organizational changes and
transitions, such as from restructuring, mergers, and acquisitions, and joint ventures”
(362). 1

Leadership also impacts the belief a group develops in its ability to perform
well. From a study of manufacturing teams, Little and Madigan (1997) have come
to believe that efficacy has been conceptualized as operating at the collective level

and that it would motivate team behavior. This collective belief would be

68

hi

influenced by the team‘s experiences of success or lack of success, comparison to
other teams, and persuasive leadership. Leadership, in conjunction with contextual
factors such as incentives, possession of necessary skills, and shared goal clarity has
great motivational potential (Little 1997). Wageman (1997) agrees with the
importance of leaders but believes that their role changes at various stages of the
team’s life. Given the importance of leadership, this study tests the following
hypothesis:

0 H7—The involvement and direction of leadership in team activities and

tasks is positively related to team performance effectiveness.

Organizational support in this study was described as more than resources,
training, and time. It was a sense that the project was regarded as important at the
highest levels of the organization. High regard can be implied through high-level
championship of the project and recognition of project contributions to
organizational goals. Alignment between the initiative and strategic organizational
decisions can reinforce other types of organizational support.

Mohrman, Cohen, and Mohrman (1995) describe organizational support
systems as guiding the nature and the quality of the processes that take place in the
organization. They outline two types of processes, “integration processes
(communication, decision making, and direction setting) and performance
management processes (defining, developing, reviewing, and rewarding
performance)” (298). This distinction is critical because it allows the separation of
human resources policies, such as compensation and rewards, from the processes

that allow alignment within the firm.

69

of in
and t
and 1
511,9?
.ti h.
reini
leiel
mess

Stud»

Subj

Patti.

Kirkman and Rosen (1999) also suggest a duality in which the team’s sense
of importance or potency, combined with external leadership support, social support,
and team-based hmnan resources policies together create a sense of empowerment
and commitment that leads to greater performance effectiveness. Organizational
support may take many forms, but it is clearly an element that affects performance.
At higher organizational levels, corporate strategies and leadership decisions
reinforce the importance of the team’s goals and tasks. The importance that higher
level management attributes to an initiative is communicated in many ways, and the
message is heard at every level of the organization (Guzzo and Noonan 1994). This
study tests the following hypothesis:

0 H8—Organizational support has a negative relationship to team performance

effectiveness.
Subjects

The participants in this study are employees of Visteon, an auto parts producer
that was until 1997 an internal component supplier of the Ford Motor Company.
Visteon employs approximately 82,000 people in 125 locations in 21 countries with
estimated sales in 1999 of $18.2 billion (The Auto Channel 1999). Executives at the
highest level of the company are interested in increasing the effectiveness of globally
dispersed teams. They recommended study of the teams within this internal electronics
division project. Five teams were selected from the nine that comprise the project
group within the Copy Exactly Initiative. The initiative was designed and has been in
existence since 1997.

The name reflects the task of the team, which is to ensure that electronics
manufacturing technology and processes are duplicated exactly across all the plants

70

ill

“1

he:

Co.

Ex;

within the electronics division at Visteon. The Copy Exactly Initiative is organized
in a traditional hierarchical manner (see Figure 3.2), both horizontally and vertically,
within the Visteon structure. It includes top-down involvement of executives,
managers, and engineers, as well as lateral involvement across the Dearborn
headquarters staff and the seven plants in the division. There are nine major
Continuous Improvement Teams (CITs) organized by process focus within the Copy
Exactly Initiative. In addition, there is a Management Review Committee (MRC) of
executives, middle managers, and plant managers. Also of particular interest is the
Core Team, which is comprised of supervisors and managers at the division or plant
level who serve as champions for the project as well as coaches for the Continuous
Improvement Teams.

For the purposes of this study, Visteon management in Dearbom was asked
to select four of the CITs to participate. One criterion was set for team selection.
Management was asked to include both teams that were performing effectively and
teams that were performing less effectively according to Copy Exactly performance
metrics.

Copy Exactly has two main metrics: participation and percent matching.
These two metrics represent two important elements of a team’s performance and
overall effectiveness in the initiative. Participation refers to the attendance of
members at team meetings, while percent of match is the shared level of procedural
and technological consistency in printed circuit board manufacture across the seven
sites. Participation is a critical part of the team’s performance, since people cannot
make contributions or facilitate the flow of information as capably if they are not

present.

71

 

 

 

 

328$: 288$ 300 ”N6 952....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

coocacm 3335
3:00:55 unseen. o_co=oo_w - 8322.5 _ H
.38. E=. 5.3 5.3336 En: uo£>ou :20
.3595 .8595
ounces. conga—2
c2358... Each. human—”m
832a 632d .
1 m U
_ _
conga—2 Leanna-2
no? 953352

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

coma—5.2 22d

 

 

 

 

 

95330.. 323.60

 

 

ooEEEoo 325m 22:03:32

950%
EoEo>an_
maoaczcoo

Eco.» 200

72

Percent of match for each team is different, since each team deals with the
details of a separate aspect of circuit board manufacture. Members of each team
consensually develop matrices for the manufacturing segment assigned to the team,
then work to make the changes necessary to accomplish these goals. The plans
include process and equipment selection recommendations called best-known
methods (BKMs).

Each team member reports his or her plant’s achievements on these two
metrics during face-to-face meetings scheduled two to four times a year. The level
of alignment is registered and reported. An overall team average is created and
reported to the Core Team, whose members report progress to management at the
division level. While these two metrics allow the company to measure team
progress, the metrics are too broad to be of genuine use in this study. Initially the
research design of this study included comparison of levels of team performance
effectiveness using the company metrics and metrics derived from study results.
Potentially this would have provided a comparative tool to see if teams ranked as
more effective on the measures in the study are also effective on the company’s
metrics. This comparison was not possible since the company did not provide the
team scores on the metrics.

The participants in this study are dispersed across eight locations—plants in
seven countries and headquarters in Dearbom. They are located in “home locations”
where team activities form varying proportions of their daily responsibilities. Each ~
“home location” selects engineers to serve as team members. Selection is based on
expertise in specific focus areas (such as surface mount placement, solder, design

rules, etc.).

73

 

 

 

In addition to the Core Team, the four teams selected include the Printer/Oven
CIT, the SMD Placement CIT, the Design Rules CIT, and the Wave/Selective Solder
CIT. Each of these teams is designed to have eight members and one coach. Each of
the eight plants that originally constituted the Electronics Division was to provide one
member on each team. In practice the teams frequently did not have a full complement
of members but only one of the teams in the study had two members from the same
plant. Engineers with the necessary expertise can also be members of up to two teams
at the same time. Membership varies both in numbers and in actual individuals on the
team, as individuals shift jobs within the company or are assigned to other duties. The
frequency of change is not predictable.

In addition to CIT members and coaches, this study also includes participants
who are not directly members of the team, but who have other functional roles, such
as engineering consultants, manufacturing managers, and plant managers. Wherever
possible, individuals at each plant in each of five categories were interviewed: Core
Team member, CIT member, representatives of functions (such as production) that
support or are supported by the team, mid-level plant supervision (such as Area
Managers or Product Team Managers), and plant manager. Individuals in comparable
roles were interviewed in Dearbom.

Due to the constraints imposed by geographic dispersion, not all members of
each team were interviewed. The team members at Visteon Electronics Technical
Center (ETC) in Dearborn and at three of the seven plants were interviewed. The
plants also were selected with the goal of including both well-performing and less well-
performing sites from among the entire group. As stated above, the plants are rated by
the same metrics as the teams: attendance or participation and percent of matching. The

74

four sites visited were the North Penn Electronics Facility near Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, in the United States, Altec near Chihuahua, Mexico; Markham near
Toronto, Canada; and the Design Factory or Advanced Manufacturing Unit at the
Visteon Electronics Technical Center in Dearbom, Michigan, in the United States.
For the web-based survey, the participants were all the members of the Copy
Exactly Initiative, as identified by management in Dearbom, as well as all those who
were interviewed. In addition, engineers who work closely with the design rules
team and in several plants were subsequently asked to fill out the survey. These
pe0ple provided additional strength to the group of non-team members who inhabit
the team’s environment. The final response rate was 76°/o——or 55 responses from 72

participants.

Data Collection and Instrumentation

The qualitative and quantitative elements of the research design for this study
are aimed at facilitating a study of globally dispersed teams that combines the
examination of factors traditionally studied in collocated teams with the scrutiny of
elements aimed at furthering an understanding of the differences that might be found
in dispersed teams. The primary methodology, the case study, is complemented by two
brief and one more lengthy survey assessment tools (see Appendices A and B). In
addition, an interview protocol was developed, using Hackman’s (1990) team
performance effectiveness characteristics as a base (see Appendix C). Although there
is a relatively small base of empirical work to date on characteristics of effective

dispersed teams, the existing literature provided further background for interview

75

questions, as well as for survey assessment tools (Knoll 1995; Townsend 1996:
O’Hara-Devereaux 1994).

In this section the five distinct data collection points are identified and described.

- Part A: observations of multi-day face-to-face meetings of five teams with
members from eight globally dispersed home locations. Each team is tasked
with specific subsets of the overall initiative goals.

- Part B: interviews with team members of five teams with specific subsets
of the overall task, as well as with participants from managerial and support
sectors of the organization across four sites (N = 30).

- Part C: administration to each of those interviewed of two short surveys
designed to gather information on perceptions of resource availability and
frequency of communication using mediated modes of communication.

0 Part D: a web-based, electronically administered survey sent to the entire
Copy Exactly Project roster, as well as to all those who were interviewed
(approximately 75 people).

0 Part E: archival data on past performance, i.e., team reports on the Copy
Exactly metrics, cost savings, and examples of the matrices being developed
in the teams.

Part A: A series of multi-day observations of the face-to-face meetings of
each of the selected teams provided a large portion of the data for the case study. In
addition, a trip to the face-to-face meeting site also included a site tour and
opportunities to gather more details and other information, such as newsletters. At
several team meetings, there were also opportunities to join team members in the
evening for dinner or at some social event. Although this was not formal
observation time (i.e., no overt note taking), these informal experiences enhanced the
more formal observations.

Each team was observed during its face-to-face meeting. These meetings

lasted from three to five days depending on the agenda. Attendance at most

76

meetings was quite good, although a couple of teams were smaller than usual due to
absences for a variety of reasons or open positions that had not yet been refilled.
Often other participants from the host location, such as managers, engineers,
members of other teams, or executives attended part or all of the meetings. In
addition, engineering or technical specialists from Dearbom, Core Team members, or
supplier representatives were at times invited to attend.

The formal face-to-face sessions allowed the researcher to observe the
following items with each of the selected teams:

0 how the team interacted,

0 the topics important to team tasks,

0 the exchange or diffusion of information among team members,

° creation of new knowledge and the interplay of shared knowledge among

members,

- the interplay of aspects of cultural diversity such as language,

- the roles of the team leader and team members,

- elements of meeting organization.

- the relationships between teams and their customers or suppliers, and

° the relationship of the team to the organizational hierarchy within which

it existed.
No interviews of team members were done during these observation sessions to
minimize the influence of the researcher’s presence. Observation notes (in all but
one case) were typed directly into a laptop computer. No tape recordings were
made. Handwritten notes taken during tours or after hours were transcribed as soon
as practicable.

Part B: A second fundamental data source was a series of interviews with
team members and other selected participants. The interviews were structured by an
interview protocol that was developed from Hackman’s (1990) team performance
criteria (see Appendix A). Participants were asked to comment on team selection,

roles, details of team meeting procedures, team task and goal, what helped team

77

success and what did not, leadership’s role, metrics, diversity. rewards, other
experience on teams, and lessons learned. The interviews were planned to last an
hour to an hour and a quarter. The interviews took place in the work setting, at the
interviewee’s desk, if no more acceptable altemative. such as a private conference
room or the cafeteria, was available.

Wherever possible, individuals at each plant in each of five following
categories were interviewed; Core Team member, CIT member, representatives of
functions (such as production) that support or are supported by the team, mid-level
plant supervision (such as Area Managers or Product Team Managers), and plant
manager.

In most cases the participants were asked all the questions. In a few cases it
was not appropriate. For example, since the plant managers were not team
members, they would not be asked how they were selected for the team. They
might instead describe how team members were selected (if they were involved in
that selection process).

Interviews were not tape-recorded. Notes were taken by hand and transcribed
later. In total 30 interviews were done. Prior to each interview, the researcher
discussed issues of confidentiality with participants, who then completed permission
forms agreeing to be interviewed and allowing use of their comments. In addition,
each participant interviewed also filled out a one-page demographic information
sheet (see Appendix D), which collected individual data on a range of demographics
including age, job title, years with the firm, educational level, languages spoken, and

international work and living experience.

78

Part C: After each interview, participants were asked to complete two short
assessments. In general, the interviewees are quite similar to the larger group. One
difference to note is that the three interviewees who do not report an engineering
background are in the group of managers. A brief overview of the demographics of
the interviewees shows:

- all but one are men,

- 70% are between 31 and 45 years of age,

0 43% have lived overseas,

° 50% have worked overseas,

° 36% speak only one language,

0 27 of 30 are educated as engineers, and

- they average 12.25 years for their current employer.

These data differ from the demographics compiled in the case study in Chapter 4
because those data refer to the larger sample of people who responded to the survey.

The short assessment tools were administered together on one sheet (see
Appendix A). The first assessment entitled “Resources” is designed to discover how
participants at the plants, in their various team-related roles, perceive the availability
of resources for the team. The list of potential resources includes items compiled
from the academic and practitioner literature on teams, from discussion with outside
experts, and from input provided by Visteon personnel who know what resources
may be available. Participants were asked to decide among three conditions: if they
believed that the team needs much more of a specific resource, has enough, or needs
less of the resource.

Scores are tallied for each resource in order to create lists ranking the
resource for each plant and each team. In addition, these scores are compared for
team members and those who are in support or related roles as well as by facility to

see whether different groups perceive resource availability differently. This

79

assessment provides insight into team needs and team member’s opinions regarding
the effect of resource availability upon team success. Availability of resources. such
as time for face-to-face meetings, is an important aspect of group formation and
performance (Lipnack and Stamps 1997; Hackman 1990).

In the second assessment, entitled “Communication” each participant was
asked to estimate the frequency of his or her use of various types of communication.
The list of communication types was compiled from the literature describing the
types of communication normally used by dispersed teams. as well as from sources
within Visteon (Lipnack and Stamps 1997; Mankin, Cohen, and Bikson 1996;
O’Hara, Devereaux, and Johansen 1994). Communication linkages are critical for
the operation of a dispersed team (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1998). Since dispersed
teams do not see each other on a regular basis, their work must be done
electronically through modes that include phone, videoconference. or email.
Analyzing communication patterns can provide insight into the interactions among
the team members.

Part D: The final data collection that involved participants directly was a
survey administered to all those interviewed and to all additional members of the
team. The 68-item survey contains both items informed by previous research as
well as new scales developed by the researcher for this topic area (see Appendix B).
Seventy-two participants received the survey via email. Participants could mark
their answers on an email reply message or they could go to a website and take a
web-based version. The email versions (ll of 55 responses) were returned with an
address so they were not anonymous replies, while the web-based responses (44 of
55) were anonymous.

80

The survey instrument contains a series of scales that reflect topics derived
from Hackman’s (1987, 1990) team performance effectiveness model, topics that
were shaped by the concerns participants raised during the interviews, and topics
from the combined academic and practitioner literature. This decision was reached
after careful analysis of existing work on dispersed teams. The goal was for the
survey to provide support for the findings from the quantitative data and to push the
boundaries of research done to date on dispersed teams.'

The items deve10ped for the survey were written and revised through several
iterations. Revisions emerged from further exploration of the existing literature, in
particular the more practitioner-oriented work focusing on field work (Coutu 1998;
Crandall and Wallace 1998; Fisher and Fisher 1998; Lipnack and Stamps 1997;
O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen 1994; Schrage 1995). Revisions were also driven
by the outcome of several Q-sort procedures. The small potential sample size
precluded a pretest; i.e., there were not enough participants to permit both testing
and administration of the survey.

All the questions on the survey were answered using a five-point Likert scale:
1 = strongly agree, 2 = somewhat agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 =
somewhat disagree, and 5 = strongly disagree. Subsequently, some items were
reverse coded for analysis; and those items in the following list are labeled (r) to
identify them. Eleven scales were constructed from the survey items. Reliability

tests were run on each scale prior to further analysis, although the small sample size

 

' Items from this survey have been adapted and used in surveys in the MIT Systems
Design and Management Master’s degree program, in the MIT Global Teams Research
Project, and by at least one PhD student in the MIT Engineering School.

81

may impact the reliability test results. A brief description of the constructs (variable
names and reliability scores in parentheses) and the items used to form the scales
follow.

Originally it was hoped that respondents to the survey would be sorted
according to their membership in individual teams, role groupings such as team
leader, or organizational role such as manager. One set of questions was inserted in
the survey to be answered only be team members. Questions 60 through 66 were to
be answered by members of the individual teams and the Core Team (see Appendix
B). Analysis of the survey responses indicates that these questions were answered
by some respondents, who did not indicate in the demographics that they were
members of either a CIT or the Core Team. Although this aspect of the analysis
was discarded, subsequent analysis reports sample sizes that vary due to this aspect
of the research design.

The questions that form the diversity (DIVERST - or = .61) scale are all
related to aspects of diversity in the Copy Exactly Initiative. Due to the global
nature of the project’s structure, diversity of national origin and race is inevitable.
The literature on global teams highlights the potential for traditional diversity factors
to be a problem. Current findings in the diversity literature point to the increasing
importance of what might be termed non-traditional factors, such as competency and
experience. These questions attempted to capture some of these topics.

10. Language is not a barrier to Copy Exactly Team success.

11. Team members of different countries do not work well together on the

Copy Exactly Team. (r)

12. The variety of skills among Copy Exactly Team members complements
each other.

82

13. Variation among people on the Copy Exactly Team helps create better

solutions.

14. Cultural differences hinder Copy Exactly Team performance. (r)

One of the more serious concerns for companies and team members involved
with globally dispersed teams is the effect of lines of accountability (ACCOUNT - a
= .56). Dispersed teams are established for strategic organizational level initiatives.
but these teams are staffed by people who work and report to local-level managers.
This situation can lead to tensions and affect individual as well as team performance,
if team members cannot balance the demands of different hierarchical levels.

15. The work of the Copy Exactly Team is an important priority to plant

management.

16. The Copy Exactly Team is accountable to the highest levels of

company management.

61. I cannot focus on Copy Exactly Team work when my boss wants other

work completed first.

The rewards and recognition (REWARDS - or = .49) that people receive for
their work is generally considered a critical motivating factor. While there are very
few detailed plans for compensating or rewarding global team members as
individuals or as a team, scholars and researchers all discuss the importance of this
factor. It was an essential topic in the interviews done with participants in this
study, and the results of those interviews pointed to the inclusion of this topic on the
survey to corroborate the findings.

17. Work on the Copy Exactly Team is not linked to the compensation I

receive from the company.

19. Any rewards I receive for my work with the Copy Exactly Team must

come from my immediate supervisor.

21. No matter how global the focus of some of my work is, it’s what I do
locally that gets rewarded.

83

The main dependent variable in this study was team performance
effectiveness (EFFECTIVE - or = .84). Effectiveness is important for any corporate
entity, but for globally dispersed teams it becomes an especially crucial issue. The
team members may have to meet differing sets of expectations and measures at the
different organizational levels at which they operate. For example, in the Copy
Exactly Initiative, plants that used resources to commonize their processes and
equipment might optimize corporate gain and suboptimize local interests.

This set of questions tries to capture some of the ways that global teams can
perform effectively that were different from the metrics used by the company.
Those metrics looked at very tangible factors, such as percent of commonization of
equipment and process and cost savings. Teams had other types of “products” that
were less tangible but equally important to effectiveness. For example, was the team
able to build enough common language, experience, and trust to make decisions
quickly and well? The members of the CITs were beginning to call each other and
help each other resolve problems. This was an important part of the cost-saving
process that was not part of the formal measures. The questions in this scale try to
answer the effectiveness question from both a tangible and an intangible perspective.

22. The Copy Exactly Team solves complex problems.

23. The common process for selecting equipment devised by the Copy

Exactly Team saves individual plants a lot of money.

24. Time to market for electronic products is being reduced through the

work of the Copy Exactly Team.

25. The Copy Exactly Team makes fast decisions.

26. Copy Exactly Team decisions are of high quality.

27. An important information-sharing network has been created among

members of the Cow Exactly Team.

28. The longer the Copy Exactly Team members work together, the more
smoothly the team functions.

84

Goal clarity (GOALCLAR - or = .64) has been identified as a critical element
of team performance effectiveness (Hackman 1987; McGrath 1984; Steiner 1972).
Participants in the interviews commented that there were frequently gaps in
understanding the goals of the initiative at different levels of the organization.
These questions are aimed at discovering how the participants perceive the alignment
of understanding of the initiative’s goals.

36. My boss understands the goals of the Copy Exactly Team.

37. All members of the Copy Exactly Team agree on the team’s goals.

38. Top management understands the goals of the Copy Exactly Team.

One of the critical aspects of global team success over the long term is how
well the efforts of the team are supported by the decisions and activities of strategic-
level executives and policy makers. This organizational support (ORGSUPPT - a =
.73) refers to the alignment of organizational policies, structure, and priorities and
how that supports team performance. For example, a decision to create a
decentralized structure of individually responsible business units makes it
increasingly difficult for a team that is trying to achieve commonization across the
company. In this study, aspects of organizational support have been divided into
two categories—integration processes and performance management processes
(Mohrman, Cohen, and Mohrman 1995). This scale is measuring the effect of
integration processes. These questions try to assess the ways members of the
organization perceive this factor.

30. The company does not understand what the Copy Exactly Team needs

to be successful. (r)
31. The company needs to learn how to manage teams as well as
individuals for efforts such as Copy Exactly to be effective. (r)

32. The Copy Exactly Team is a global initiative but the company has no

global structure of policies and procedures to support it. (r)

85

One very different characteristic of globally dispersed teams is their
geographic and temporal separation. In order to communicate and operate as a team
they must rely on electronically mediated forms of communication (MEDIACOM -
or = .6983). Communicating via email, telephone conference. or videoconference is
very different from face-to-face communications. This difficulty can be increased by
differences in time zones as well as in native languages. These questions represent a
first attempt at trying to capture participant perceptions of these differences and to
begin to discuss them in terms of organizational learning (Goodman and Barr 1996;
Barker and Camarata 1998).

In addition, interviews indicate there is a difference in the types of tasks that
get accomplished and the levels of perceived success achieved during different types
of meetings. It may be an important part of team effectiveness training if different
modes of communication facilitate different types of tasks. Mediated
communication also affects the creation of personal relationships and bonds of trust
that are important for effective performance on all teams but even more difficult for.
dispersed teams to build.

40. The time the Copy Exactly Team spends at face-to-face meetings is key

to team effectiveness.

41. During teleconferences the Copy Exactly Team work is less creative

and more routine than it is during face-to-face meetings.

42. Time zone differences are easily overcome by electronic

communications.

43. The team has learned how to develop personal relationships while using

electronic media.

44. Copy Exactly Team members get the most accomplished when they
meet face-to-face.

86

The dilemma for team members about leadership (LEADERSHP - or = .81) is
similar to the issues raised about accountability. Several levels of leadership are
responsible for the team’s activities. In some cases it is clear that the leadership has
ownership in the project and is actively creating an environment in which the project
can be successful. In other situations, there appear to be some mixed messages and
motives at work. These questions endeavor to discover how participants at all levels
perceive the roles of leadership in this situation.

46. The Copy Exactly Team is more successful because team leaders

actively work to remove barriers.

47. Coaches on the Copy Exactly Team help members to learn how to work

together effectively.

48. Company leadership and the Copy Exactly Team share common goals.

49. Company leadership is committed to the changes that the Copy Exactly

Team makes.

50. Managers responsible for Copy Exactly help link the project to the rest

of the company.

As in previous research on how teams create useful knowledge among
themselves (Cutcher-Gershenfeld et al. 1998), it was important to assess team
member perceptions of the knowledge and information network created by work on
the team. These items create a scale called knowledge and skill (KNOWSKL - 0t =
.74). This aspect of team-based work is beginning to capture attention as part of the
knowledge management efforts of some large companies (Nonaka and Takeuchi
1995; Edvinsson and Malone 1997; Stewart 1997). It is increasingly clear that
information and knowledge can provide a basis for greater flexibility, which may
then be translated into a competitive advantage (Myers 1996).

55. I never expected a team to generate so much useful knowledge.

56. Working on the Copy Exactly Team gives me access to useful
knowledge I can get nowhere else.

87

57. I never expected to learn as much as I do from other members of the
Copy Exactly Team.

58. Working together the Copy Exactly Team creates solutions that I could

not create working alone.

Part E: A small portion of the information used in this study was obtained
from archival sources within the company, such as data on past performance levels
and reports on team activities. In addition, team-meeting agendas were sent out via
email to the researcher prior to a face-to-face meeting. When the researcher went
out to plants for visits, materials such as plant newsletters and flyers provided details
of the local climate and culture.

The company shared data on team performance on the metrics within the
Copy Exactly Initiative. These data were complemented by newspaper and

magazine articles used to describe the general competitive climate and events in the

company’s history.

Language and Cross-Cultural Research

One final issue must be addressed in this section on instrumentation.
Although the participants in this study live and work in eight different locations,
they interact in English. All survey materials are written in English, and all
interviews were conducted in English, since that is the common language of the
team and the corporation. Despite this fact, cultural and nationality differences are
compounded by language barriers, which may not even be visible to the participants
(Zachary 1998). In general, the team members seemed to have little trouble with

language and made allowances patiently when any difficulties arose. It is impossible

88

to know whether language made a difference in the information gathered in this

study, but it is safer to assume that it did.

Data Analysis

Due to the qualitative as well as quantitative nature of the data collected, data
analysis must be designed to use the methods that fit the data and the purpose of the
study. In this section the analysis plans for both types of data are discussed.

The results from the two short instruments, “Resources” and
“Communication” (see Appendix A) are analyzed simply by compiling the scores
and frequencies. Each instrument generates a different view of participant
perception of these two aspects of the Copy Exactly Initiative teams. The
information is of great interest to the company and to the teams, because it may
reflect areas where the status quo is adequate. or areas where improvements might
help team performances.

The quantitative data collected from the administration of the web-based
survey require multivariate analysis. The main analysis tool is multiple linear
regression analysis. Regression analysis is most useful in investigating whether
relationships exist between the variables and what the magnitudes of the effects
might be. Given the theory building nature of this study, the primary focus is to
discover the most useful model for predicting the dependent variable. team
performance effectiveness.

Hackman and others who have studied collocated teams have determined a
series of factors that they believe are essential for performance effectiveness. In this
study a selected group of those factors are considered: goal clarity, rewards,

89

leadership, and diversity. A series of factors are identified that may differ when
studied in dispersed teams: mediated communication, organizational support,
accountability, and knowledge and skills. It is important to discern how these
variables affect performance effectiveness.

The scores of individuals at each of the study locations were also scrutinized.
Here again the average or mean scores for the locations were compared to their
scores on the corporate metrics of participation and percent of match. Locations that
rank higher on the corporate metrics also score above average on the survey results.

Analysis of this data is limited by the sample size (N = 55). Although 76%
of those surveyed responded, the population for this study was constrained by
membership on the teams at the time of the survey. In fact, for one team there were
only two respondents, so while those scores can be used in analysis of the total
sample, any analysis of team scores was precluded. These small numbers impact the
results of statistical analysis.

A separate issue that impacts the sample size is the result of research design.
Initially the design called for comparison of scores across groups of respondents
such as team members, managers, or people in related support functions. One
section of survey questions, numbers 60—66, was to be answered by team members
only with the goal of seeing whether responses differed across groups. The actual
pattern of responses on the survey combined with the overall small sample size
forced a change in research design as well as caused variance in sample sizes in the
results.

In the qualitative analysis, data were, of course. used in the construction of
the case study that is part of this overall research study. The details of site visits,

90

physical surroundings, and other elements of the teams' environments were
described. Data from observations, interviews, and records such as newspapers or
magazines were used to animate and enrich a description of the interactions,
relationships, tensions, and successes of the people inside and near the Copy Exactly
Initiative.

Further qualitative data analysis followed the traditional iterative process of
studying and refining the data. Initial coding of the data was framed by the
variables inherent in the structure of the interview protocol: information about team
tasks, goals, roles, selection, performance metrics, drivers and barriers for success,
rewards, leadership, lessons learned, and information diffused, among others.
Subsequent iterations of analysis attempted to discover the patterns that lie within
each of the large blocks of data creating dimensions or subtopics of information to
explore. Finding patterns or categories among the data led to further analysis of
linkages and interactions with an eye to beginning to build theory.

The broader outlines of the organizational context became visible during
analysis of the qualitative data. Relationships are illustrated in comments and
interview responses in ways that the rigor of survey methodology precludes. It is a
good match to fit the details of quantitative data into the contextual frame of the
qualitative perspective. Integrating the results of the various analytical methods
chosen for this study results in a “story” that informs discussion and stimulates
further questions.

The analysis of the data collected in this study provides some initial insights
into factors that affect the performance effectiveness of globally dispersed teams.
Some factors were identified that have greater predictability than others. This serves

91

to drive further research to confirm. discredit. or expand these findings. Although
generalizability is limited by the sample size, some effects were found that will lead
to further inquiry. Use of the two types of data to compare and contrast findings
allows the findings a degree of validity that might not be present under other

conditions.

92

RESOURCES CITED

Auto Channel, The (1999). “Visteon Automotive Systems: The Facts.” PRNewswire:
http://www. theautochannel. com/media/

Barker, R. T. and M. R. Camarata (1998). “The Role of Communication in Creating
and Maintaining a Learning Organization: Preconditions, Indicators, and
Disciplines.” The Journal of Business Communication 35 (4).

Baugh, S. G. and G. B. Graen (1997). “Effects of Team Gender and Racial

Composition on Perceptions of Team Performance in Cross-Functional Teams.”
Group and Organization Management 22 (3): 366—384.

Cook, J. D., S. J. Hepworth, T. D. Wall, and P. B. Warr (1981). The Experience of
Work: A Compendium and Review of 249 Measures and their Use. London,
England, Academic Press.

Coutu, D. L. (1998). “Trust in Virtual Teams.” Harvard Business Review 76 (3):
20—22.

Crandall, F ., N. and M. J. Wallace (1998). Work and Rewards in the Virtual
Workplace: a “New Deal" for Organizations and Employees. New York,
AMACOM.

Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., M. Nitta, B. Barrett, N. Belhedi, S. Chow, T. Inaba, I.
Ishino, W.—J. Lin, M. Moore, W. Mothersell, J. Palthe, S. Ramanand, M. Strolle,
and A. Wheaton (1998). Knowledge-Driven Work: Unexpected Lessons from
Japanese and US. Work Practices. New York, Oxford University Press.

Edvinsson, L. and M. S. Malone (1997). Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your
Company ’s True Value by Finding its Hidden Brainpower. New York, Harper-
Collins Publishers, Inc.

Ferris, G. R., T. R. Mitchell, P. J. Canavan, D. D. Frink, and H. Hopper (1995).
Accountability in Human Resources Systems. Handbook of Human Resource
Management. G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen and D. T. Barnum. Oxford, UK,
Blackwell Publishers: 175—196.

Fisher, K. and M. D. Fisher (1998). The Distributed Mind: Achieving High

Performance through the Collective Intelligence of Knowledge Work Teams. New
York, American Management Association.

93

Frink, D. D. and G. R. Ferris (1998). “Accountability, Impression Management, and
Goal Setting in the Performance Evaluation Process.” Human Relations 51 (10):
1259—1283.

Goodman, P. S. and E. D. Darr (1996). “Exchanging Best Practices through
Computer-Aided Systems.” The Academy of Management Executive 10 (2): 7-20.

Guzzo, R. A. and K. A. Noonan (1994). “Human Resources Practices as
Communications and the Psychological Contract.” Human Resource Management
33 (3): 447—463.

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The Design of Work Teams. Handbook of Organizational
Behavior. J. W. Lorsch. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall: 315—342.

Hackman, R. J., Ed. (1990). Groups that Work (and Those That Don ’t): Creating
Conditions for Effective Teamwork. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Harrison, D. A., K. H. Price, and M. P. Bell (1998). “Beyond Relational
Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on
Work Group Cohesion.” Academy of Management Journal 41 (1): 96—107.

Hollingshead, A. B. and J. E. McGrath (1995). Computer-Assisted Groups: A
Critical Review of the Empirical Research. Team Effectiveness and Decision

Making in Organizations. R. A. Guzzo and E. Salas. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass
Publishers: 46—78.

Jackson, S., E., K. E. May, and K Whitney (1995). Understanding the Dynamics of
Diversity in Decision-Making Teams. Team Effectiveness and Decision Making
in Organizations. R. A. Guzzo and E. Salas. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass:
204—261.

Jackson, S. E. (1991). Team Composition in Organizational Settings: Issues in

Managing an Increasingly Diverse Workforce. Group Process and Productivity.
S. Worchel, W. Wood and S. Simpson. Newbury, CA, Sage: 138-171.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., K. Knoll, and D. E. Leidner (1998). “Is Anybody Out There?
Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams.” Journal of Management
Information Systems 14 (4): 29—64.

Jarvenpaa, S. L. and D. E. Leidner (1998). “Communication and Trust in Global
Virtual Teams.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication:

http://www. ascusc. org/j cmc/vol 3/ issue 4/j arvenpaa. html

Jones, P. and J. Jordan (1998). “Knowledge Orientations and Team Effectiveness.”
International Journal of Technology Management 16 (1—3): 152—161.

94

Katzenbach, J. R. and D. K. Smith (1992). “Why Teams Matter.” The McKinsey
Quarterly Summer (3): 3—28.

Katzenbach, J. R. and D. K. Smith (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the
High-Performance Organization. New York, Harper Collins.

Kirkman, B. L. and D. L. Shapiro (1997). “The Impact of Cultural Values on
Employee Resistance to Teams: Toward a Model of Globalized Self-Managing
Work Team Effectiveness.” Academy of Management Review 22 (3): 730—758.

Knoll, K. and S. L. Jarvenpaa (1995). “Learning to Work in Distributed Global
Teams.” Wlectronic version—previous version presented at HICSS 1995.

Kraines, G. A. (1996). “Hierarchy’s Bad Rap.” Journal of Business Strategy 17 (4):
13—13.

Krosnick, J. A. (1999). “Survey Research.” Annual Review of Psychology: 537.

Langfred, C. and M. Shanley (1997). “The Importance of Organizational Context: A

Conceptual Model of Cohesiveness and Ineffectiveness in Work Groups.” Public
Administration Quarterly 21 (3): 349—369.

Lawler III, E. E. (1996). From the Ground Up: Six Principles for Building the New
Logic Corporation. San Francisco, CA., Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Lipnack, J. and J. Stamps (1997). Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time, and
Organizations with Technology. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Little, B. L. and R. M. Madigan (1997). “The Relationship between Collective
Efficacy and Performance in Manufacturing Work Teams.” Small Group
Research 28 (4): 517—534.

Locke, E. A. and G. P. Latham (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task
Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

Mankin, D., S. G. Cohen, and T. K. Bikson (1996). Teams and Technology:
Fulfilling the Promise of the New Organization. Boston, MA, Harvard Business
School Press. ’

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
Prentice-Hall, Inc. '

Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA., Sage Publications.

95

Miller, D. C. (1991). The Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement.
Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications, Inc.

Mohrman, S. A., S. J. Cohen. and A. M. Mohrman Jr. (1995). Designing T eam-
based Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work. San Francisco, CA.,
Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers.

Myers, P. S., Ed. (1996). Knowledge Management and Organizational Design.
Boston, MA, Butterworth-Heinemann.

Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How
Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York, Oxford
University Press.

O’Hara-Devereaux, M. and R. Johansen (1994). Globalwork: Bridging Distance,
Culture, and Time. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., J. J. Martocchio, and D. D. Frink (1994). “ A Review of the
Influence of Group Goals on Group Performance.” Academy of Management
Journal 37 (5): 1285—1302.

O’Reilly III, C. A., D. F. Caldwell,and W. P. Barnett. (1989). “Work Group
Demography, Social Integration, and Turnover.” Administrative Science
Quarterly 34: 21—37.

Pelled, L. H., K. M. Eisenhardt, and K. R. Xin (1999). “Exploring the Black Box: an
Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict, and Performance.” Administrative

Science Quarterly 44 (1): 1—27.

Ruhleder, K. (2000). “The Virtual Ethnographer: Fieldwork in Distributed Electronic
Environments.” Field Methods 12 (1): 3—17.

Schrage, M. (1995). No More Teams.’: Mastering the Dynamics of Creative
Collaboration. New York, Currency Doubleday.

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group Process and Productivity. New York, Academic Press.

Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. New
York, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.

Townsend, A. M., S. M. DeMarie, and A. R. Hendrickson (1996). “Are You Ready
for Virtual Teams?” HRMagazine 41 (9): 122.

Wageman, R. (1995). “Interdependence and Group Effectiveness.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 40 (1): 145—81.

96

Wageman, R. (1997). “Critical Success Factors for Creating Superb Self Managing
Teams.” Organizational Dynamics 25 (1): 49—63.

Warkentin, M. E., L. Sayeed, and R. Hightower (1997). “Virtual Teams versus Face-
to-Face Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-Based Conference System.”
Decision Sciences 28 (4): 975—996.

Zachary, G. P. (1998). “The Rage for Global Teams: Employment of Foreign
Engineers by Multinational Companies.” Technology Review 101 (4): 33.

97

CHAPTER 4
CASE STUDY: GLOBALLY APPLIED STRATEGY

AND LOCALLY EXERCISED EXPERTISE

Transnational organizations have spent a great deal of time and money
building global enterprises that are effective in the market and optimize the use of
resources. The people of these organizations are asked to undertake new challenges
such as the new, dispersed, team-based work arrangements that are the focus of this
study. The following case study examines the dispersed teams of one global
initiative as they work within this new system. This story is based on interviews
and observations with team members and archival data from the teams and the firm.

Investigating the context within which the teams operate deepens one’s
understanding of the individual data gathered in this study. Factors in the
environment external to the teams and company are a powerful influence both on the
strategies and tactics of the firm and on the activities of the team. Internally one of
the most interesting aspects of globally dispersed teams is the fact that they operate
across local and global organizational levels. At the team level, complexity
increases as the team members work together electronically and periodically face-to-
face for they create shared knowledge and interests that can and do conflict with the

local interests that form the day-to-day responsibilities of each individual team

98

member. The interaction of the details at all these levels is at the core of the
following story.

Of primary interest in this study is the effect of factors within the
organizational environment factors on the performance effectiveness of globally
dispersed teams. Up to a point, as we have seen in Hackman’s model, dispersed
teams have much the same needs as collocated teams. They need material resources,
clear goals and objectives, leadership, trust, and the opportunity to complete their
tasks. Each of these factors exists for the teams in this study, but the impact of
geographic separation and different home locations is very great and difficult to
overcome. Indeed, most organizations have not yet fully recognized the profound
impact of geographic dispersion.

For example, few employment relations policies and procedures support the
work of global teams at any level of the company. Team members are generally
governed by the policies in effect at their home location. These policies are
certainly shaped by legal and cultural issues unique to each country within which the
team members live. Local employment relations often do not support global
strategies: at the Altec plant, to cite one example, the Copy Exactly engineers are
very conscious that they are not Visteon employees and do not have the benefits of
the same employment relationship as other members of the team.

The lack of global corporate integration can also be seen in the complaints of
a manager at the North Penn plant about the difficulty of retaining qualified
engineers, while at the same table, his counterpart from Arbor in Brazil relates how

engineers there had just been laid off. The lack of alignment in human resource

99

activities is only one example of the current levels of dissonance that global business
is creating for these employees.

Discrepancies also arise from of the general lack of explicit mechanisms to
diffuse the information and knowledge generated by dispersed teams throughout the
corporation. When teams work on a shared task, they create a unique base of shared
knowledge that allows team members to work in their home locations with a global
view of corporate activities not available to people at all levels of the company.
This shared knowledge base is one team product that as yet cannot be measured or
rewarded. Few formal opportunities exist for information generated by the team or
in team activities to flow to home location supervisors or managers who are not
members of a small group of supervisors associated with the project (see below, the
Core Team). The lack of shared information can cause disruption and
misunderstandings that act as barriers to achievement of corporate goals.

This case study will offer a glimpse of some of the complexities facing the
globally dispersed teams of the Copy Exactly Project and their employer, Visteon.
The locations visited for this study include the North Penn Electronics Facility in
Lansdale, Pennsylvania, United States; Altec Electronics in Chihuahua, Mexico; the
Markham Electronics Plant in Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and the Electronics
Technical Center in Dearbom, Michigan, United States. The five teams are the
Printers/Ovens Team, the Wave/Selective Solder Team, the Design Rules Team, the
SMD Placement Team, and the Copy Exactly Core Team. The names of the teams
derive from the aspect of printed circuit board manufacture that they are responsible

for communizing.

100

The first part of the case will look briefly at aspects of both the global
competitive environment and the corporate environment that affect team
performance, followed by an overview of the project, a tutorial on electronic circuit
board manufacture, descriptions of the study locations, and introductions to the
participating teams. In each section, factors that influence team performance will be

highlighted.

Perspective on the Global Competitive Environment

The story of the Copy Exactly Initiative is one governed by a strategic
decision to strive for super integration in a product line, as well as to improve the
performance effectiveness of a globally dispersed team. The story has roots in the
history and future of Ford Motor Company. It evolves out of a rich and complex
environment about two years before this study began. Visteon was created in
response to global competitive forces that pressured the parent company, Ford Motor
Company, to establish an independent entity that must adapt to new relationships
with its customers and competitors. Three primary factors continue to have critical
impact on Visteon and Copy Exactly: restructuring in the global auto supply
industry; redirection of internal organizational structures and product strategies; and

rapid, successive changes in organizational leadership.

Three Factors Affecting Copy Exactly
Industry Restructuring

An April 1999 BusinessWeek article describing the restructuring of the global
auto parts industry cites industry executives who predict that “the parts industry will

10]

shrink from more than 1,000 first-tier companies today to as few as 25 well-
financed, global suppliers” (Galuszka et al. 1999: 121). This trend began more than
seven years earlier, in 1992, when a new leadership team at General Motors
announced the consolidation of the automotive parts units into a separate entity,
Delphi Automotive Systems. In 1997, Ford followed with the creation of Visteon,
the second largest auto parts supplier in the world. (GM’s Delphi is number one.

with $26 billion in sales in 1996 [Versical 1997].)

Product Strategies

A second major trend is the original equipment manufacturers’ (OEM)
demand for modular units and components systems. Increases in this trend are
forcing parts makers to design and produce systems and subsystems. To build this
type of product most effectively, parts suppliers must integrate product lines and
manufacturing processes. Product integration became and remains a priority at
Visteon (Sorge et al. 1997).

However, production of integrated systems also requires more cooperation
between suppliers and OEMs than exists today, according to John Gioia, president of
a program management services firm. This cooperative relationship may be
problematic for Visteon, since the company has traditionally dealt with suppliers
from the perspective of an OEM (Sorge et al. 1997; Fleischer 1998). Success in
building better‘relations with suppliers will also be essential in realizing the
maximum benefits from lean manufacturing, especially in terms of faster cycle times
and lower inventories. Competitive pressure to be the lowest cost, highest quality,
and most responsive supplier can only increase.

102

The auto parts giants continue to try to acquire an edge in the market by
consolidating their advantages. For example, Visteon lost out to Lear in a 1998 bid
to buy the Delphi Automotive seating business (Anonymous 1998d). Charles
Szuluk, Visteon chief executive at that time, shifted to a strategy that drove Visteon
to attain modular or systems capabilities, which he believed would be the core of the
industry in the future. Szuluk “predicted that 50 percent of the value of the car will
be in electronics in a few years” (Young 1998).

In August of 1999, business and industry sources were full of a potential
reverse acquisition of Visteon by the Lear Corporation.I The deal, rumored to be a
stock swap, would have created a parts supply operation equal to Delphi Automotive
Systems. Although Visteon promised the UAW that there would be no spinoffs,
many inside and outside of the company believe that the creation of Visteon was a
strategic move aimed at the ultimate creation of an independent entity with a destiny

that diverged from Ford’s.2

Organizational Change and Restructuring
Organizational change and restructuring have been a consistent part of the
story of Visteon. In October 1996, former Ford Automotive Operations president

and newly named vice chairman in charge of components, Edward E. Hagenlocker,

 

' The 1998 Delphi purchase made “Lear the world’s No. 5 auto parts maker
based on annual sales, behind Delphi; Ford Motor Co.’s Visteon, Germany’s Robert
Bosch GmbH, and Japan’s Denso” (McCracken 1999).

2 On February 12, 1999 GM sold off the first 17.5% of its shares in Delphi with
the rest to be sold this year (Versical 1997). This is an event the import of which
could not be lost on Visteon (Eisenstein 1999).

103

ordered the components operations turned into a self-funding profit center. A month
later, the Ford Automotive Products Operations was formed, combining the
automaker’s four divisions: automotive components, electrical and fuel handling.
glass, and chassis (Winter 1997).

About a year later, in September 1997, Ford Automotive Products Operations
became Visteon. Employees learned of the change from President Charles Szuluk
via global satellite broadcast.3 Visteon was structured into seven divisions and 24
strategic business units (SBUs). Szuluk focused on electronics as the competency
that was pervasive throughout the firm and wanted employees to shift to a customer
responsive, lean organization. In order to facilitate needed change, employees had to
begin to think differently. Among the tactics used to make this shift, Visteon
leadership attended classes in how to become a learning organization taught by Peter
Senge at MIT (Sorge et al. 1997).

In November, 1997, the efforts to stimulate internal growth and change
continued as Visteon benchmarked Dell, Intel, and Hewlett Packard with the goal of
radically improving cycle time and reducing inventory (Vasilash 1997). These goals
were linked to lean manufacturing through the Ford Production System. Another

outgrowth of benchmarking was the adoption of the process used in the Copy

 

3 The new name is the result of a year’s worth of meetings and memos between
Ford officials and representatives of subsidiaries of Young & Rubicam. The name is
coined from the two words “visionary” and “con.” The name search began in
October of 1996 and the new name was announced at the Frankfort Motor Show in
1997. Szuluk broadcast the announcement via satellite to Visteon employees world
wide. The name change was accompanied by the adoption of the new logo of
swirling orange dots (Gazdik 1997; Sorge et al. 1997).

104

Exactly Initiative, which was developed at Intel and adapted to Visteon by people in
the Electronics Division.

Throughout the winter of 1997 and 1998, Visteon reacted to external
pressures by attempting to develop more markets as well as more products. Among
the tactics employed were ventures into theater seating, windshield wiper systems,
and components parts acquisitions in Poland and France, as well as new plants or
facilities in England, Portugal, and the Philippines (Anonymous 1998a; Anonymous
1998b; Anonymous 1998c; Ott and Sedgewick 1998; Buchholz 1998).

The people of Visteon, coming of age in a highly charged automotive parts
industry, had to learn new skills and behaviors at a staggering pace. Customarily, a
strong, consistent leadership vision facilitates such corporate change. In fact, the
personal experiences and charisma of a corporate leader often drive these visions.
Inevitably tensions arise when there is discontinuity between the new strategy or
mission and extant components of a corporate identity. In the case of the fledgling
Visteon, shifts in corporate leadership removed even this leadership factor as an

element of consistency.

Leadership Change

In a company with the heritage and traditions of Ford Motor Company, there
is a deeply ingrained culture that reflects and promotes corporate identity. When the
corporation needs to change this culture, a former strength can become an obstacle
as employees struggle to learn or unleam the critical elements that make the new

initiatives successful. At Visteon, change has occurred rapidly as organizational

105

structures are re-aligned and leadership positions are filled. These large-scale
changes have occurred at a furious pace—every ten to thirteen months.

In September 1997, the newly appointed president of Visteon, Charles
Szuluk, announced that the new business entity, Visteon, was to remain an enterprise
of Ford Motor Company but actively create its own brand recognition, with an eye
to increasing its share of non-Ford business from 5% to 20% in the next five years.
Szuluk’s background in electronics shaped his business strategies for the new
enterprise, which became a virtually autonomous profit center (Winter 1997).

Just over a year later in October 1998, Craig Muhlhauser was promoted to
president of Visteon after Szuluk retired. Muhlhauser’s experience in marketing in
the aerospace industry helped him create a new global marketing force for the firm.
At the same time, Marcos S. Oliveira became vice president and general manager of
electronic systems, replacing Gary VanderHaagen (Anonymous l998e). The shift in
leadership in the electronics division caused some concern among the Copy Exactly
participants, because they were unsure of ongoing commitment to their initiative.

In November of 1999, leadership changed again when Peter Pestillo was
named chairman and chief executive of Visteon. Pestillo helped negotiate 1999
contract language that guarantees Visteon’s blue-collar workforce jobs and wage
parity with Ford employees (White 1999). Pestillo’s ability to maintain good labor
relations is seen as an asset as Visteon is moving toward the time when it will

become an independent company. The Copy Exactly leadership was also affected

106

by the high-level leadership changes, and the initiative had no budget or corporate
‘home’ until February 2000.4

Despite leadership changes, corporate policies in human resources, labor
relations, or compensation and benefits often do not change fast enough to reflect
the day-to-day reality of the workplace. In other words, an orange sweater with a
dynamic logo might remind an employee that she now works for Visteon, but it is a
superficial change, a change that might not really inform her of the critical strategic
direction and goals that leadership believes vital to organizational success. This may
be especially true if leadership is changing as frequently as it is at Visteon. Rumors
fly for weeks or even months that more changes are imminent, which may derail
initiatives before they even take hold. Uncertainty and ambiguity make it hard for
people to move forward day-to-day with their work, without clear knowledge of the
impact these changes will have either on that work or on the security of their

positions.

Strategic Alignment

As the history of the company unfolds, it is possible to see the importance of
alignment between leadership goals and support or existence of individual strategies
like Copy Exactly. The clear path of strategic thinking that provided the impetus for
the Copy Exactly Initiative was somewhat diverted when Szuluk retired and

Muhlhauser became president. Ongoing reorganizations occurred as leadership

 

" Ongoing conversations with people at Visteon chronicle the shifts in leader-
ship emphasis and interests. As of February 17, 2000 the Copy Exactly Initiative
was now part of Electrical Core Design for the North American Cockpit SBU.

107

structures changed, and the Copy Exactly Initiative eventually found itself without a
budget or specific champion.

Szuluk, and later Craig Muhlhauser, who officially took over as Visteon
president in January 1999, were able to make major strides toward their shared goal
of making Visteon a stand-alone supplier. One major need was met when, in his 13-
month tenure as vice president of sales and marketing, Muhlhauser put together a
global marketing division with offices in all the major automotive capitols and a
sales staff of several hundred (Sedgwick 1998). Then, in 1998, Visteon booked $1.8
billion in new business, of which non-Ford business accounted for 45% (Sedgwick
1998)

Szuluk and Muhlhauser shared a belief that the workforce was the one key
element in the potential success of their company that had yet to be fully engaged.
Both men expressed frustration with the time needed to design, develop, and market
a new product (Young 1998). Muhlhauser strongly stated his belief that Visteon
people need to “have a sense of urgency” and to think differently so they will act
differently (Vasilash 1999). In essence he was saying that the success of the
company depends on the proper combination of globally applied strategy and locally
exercised expertise.

How this drive to activate local expertise and stimulate a change in work
force attitudes will play out is unclear, especially after the recent contract
negotiations in which the UAW negotiated job security language for Visteon
workers with Ford. Concern over the future of these employees pushed the union to
insist on a level of job security for the Visteon workforce. The final agreement
allowed Visteon’s hourly workers to remain Ford employees despite any subsequent

108

sale of the firm within a certain period. Pestillo, current chairman and chief
executive of Visteon, has proven expertise in maintaining good labor relations with
workers at Ford. He brings this emphasis to his leadership role and will want to
continue his good relations with the workforce. Although a sense of security allows
people to work and contribute freely without fear of losing their livelihoods, it will
require real balance to generate excitement and change while maintaining that sense
of security.

Under the leadership of Pestillo and his staff, the firm has apparently shifted
back to a system within which the individual plants are profit centers, which could
once again raise the competitive barriers between sites and reduce the impact of the
commonization efforts of Copy Exactly. In addition, the contract provisions on job
security do not cover the engineers who are the members of the global Copy Exactly
project. At every Copy Exactly team face-to-face meeting there was at least one
extended period of uneasy discussion about changes that had just occurred or were
rumored to be happening very soon.

In an environment so full of change it will be difficult to create a consistently
competent, pervasive brand presence for the electronic systems that Visteon
produces. Success at this effort, however, will allow the company to attain its stated
goal of having a Visteon system in every car in the world (Young 1998). Given the
ubiquitous nature of electronics in today’s automobiles, the depth of expertise within
the firm, and the base of shared processes and information created by Copy Exactly,
Visteon has some powerful tools. It is to be hoped that the company will be able to

capitalize on these factors as it continues to separate from Ford.

109

A Brief Overview: The Copy Exactly Initiative
The Plan

Craig Muhlhauser’s strategic blending of globally applied strategy and locally
exercised expertise finds apt expression in the activities of the Copy Exactly
Initiative. The initiative was launched in 1997, after a benchmarking trip to Intel.
Copy Exactly is a process by which printed circuit board manufacture and design are
commonized. All processes, materials, and equipment used across all the electronics
manufacturing operations are scrutinized and compared to a consensually established
set of best-known methods (BKMs). Every detail is to be analyzed so it can be
controlled and copied (see Figure 4.1). Quality is to be absolutely controlled as
well. Process uniformity allows for faster problem solving, sharing of solutions

across manufacturing sites, and greater ease in ordering and planning production.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 1
General : : Match
1 Placement BKM TSMD Ll i i ? Yes = 1 N0 = 1
I "' I
1. Machine 1 i
i -- 1‘
1.1 Manufacturer Universal Universal 4: i 1
I "' I
1.2 Model GSM GSMl l l 1
1.3 Soflware version 3.03 3.01 i l l
l ------ - --— +--+
I I
l I
------------ +--+
Number E E 88 15
Matched to g :
BKM/Total : :
Items 1 l
i -- i
Overall 5 5 0.8543
Matching % l :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.1: General Placement Machine Commonization Matrix

[Segment of BKM Matrix adapted from matrix developed by The Visteon SMD
Placement Team in 1998. Received from Tony Boccardi, Team Leader.]

110

In fact, one of the primary performance metrics in this initiative is the percent
of match achieved with the BKMs for each segment of printed circuit board design
and manufacture. Copy Exactly team members monitor the percent of match of
their plant on each item in these detailed outlines. Reports are submitted
periodically.

A second principal metric is participation or attendance at meetings and
conference calls. This is also a critical metric, since information and solutions to
problems are diffused in these interactions. The larger the group of people present
in the conversation, the greater the pool of experiences from which to develop
potential options for solutions to problems.

The object of these efforts is to create the optimal system for manufacturing
circuit boards. One outcome would be the cost savings realized through simplified
purchasing and procurement as materials became standard across product lines and
plants. In addition. the company could confidently shift product from plant to plant
without fear of reducing quality or production numbers. As engineers supporting
Copy Exactly create a network of information and problem solving, they become a
resource useful far beyond their individual plants. The greatest impact from COpy
Exactly activities will be felt over the long term as more and more variation is
removed from the production system.

A large group of people from each of the electronics operations in Visteon
does the work of developing and implementing these BKMs. At the start of this
study, the Electronics Division was one of seven divisions (24 strategic business
units) within Visteon (chassis, climate control, electronics, exterior, glass, interior,
and power train), with each unit accountable for overall profit and 1055. There were

111

eight plants in the Electronics Division, although several were shared by more than
one SBU. These plants were in seven countries: the US, Canada, Mexico, Brazil,
England, Spain, and Portugal. In addition, the Advanced Technology unit at the
Electronics Technical Center in Dearbom, Michigan, provided oversight, support.
and technical experts for the project.

The Initiative at Visteon had a well-considered design. The three structural
components included corporate executives and plant managers in the Management
Review Committee (MRC), immediate supervisors as members of the PWB (Printed
Wire Board) Core Team, and engineers at each plant on the CITs. Initially each

group had a set of defined duties and intervals of communication (see Table 4.1).

The Implementation

Table 4.1 indicates the membership of each component of Copy Exactly, their
tasks, and the meeting/communication schedule. Added to this chart is a column
that indicates where each unit has its primary strategic focus. This refers to the level
of decision-making and analysis that is most dominant in the group. For example,
the MRC is a high-level leadership group that focuses on the overarching plan,
corporate resources, and outcomes. The view at this level is on the impact of the
initiative on the activities and profits of the company as a whole. Even though the
plant managers are members of this group, the primary focus is global rather than
local. In a company that has changed so much in a short time, the comments of one
Visteon engineer are not surprising: “In my opinion, the MRC at Intel was very
strong because it shared a commitment to the project, but the MRC at Visteon is less
single minded in its commitment.”

112

Table 4.1: Component Units of Copy Exactly Initiative

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting/
Strategic Communication
Name of Unit Membership Focus Tasks Schedule
Management Divisional Global Set policies Trimester face-
Review leadership. Metric reviews to-face
Committee corporate Development of project Monthly steering
executives, and issues and plans group conference
plant managers Review and approve calls
technical roadmap
Resolve non-compliance
issues
Ensure resource availability
Recognition and celebration
Core Team Advanced Global and Coordinate the global Face-to-face
manufacturing local strategy for Copy Exactly meetings 2—4
managers or Act as liaison betwen the times a year
supervisors at CITs and upper levels of Monthly
each location management conference calls
Set budgets and goals for
overall group
Provide information and
other support as needed to I
the teams
Continuous Selected expert Local and Development of best-known Face-to-face
Improvement engineers and global methods meetings 2—4
Team technicians Inventory of existing times a year
conditions Weekly or
Implementation of biweekly
communication plans conference calls Ii

 

It is also, perhaps, not unexpected that as the initiative moves down through

the organization, the analysis and decision-making of the units becomes more

involved with and focused on local operations. The Core Team has a mixed focus

that derives from its role as the link between the MRC and the ClTs.

Core Team

members coordinate the global strategy for Copy Exactly with the needs of team

members. They have global understanding and knowledge but must also coordinate

the progress of teams and team members at each of the plants. In addition all the

Core Team members have a home location at a plant except for one who is based in

Dearbom.

CIT members do their Copy Exactly related tasks predominantly at the local
level, in their home locations; but they acquire extensive information on global
operations through interaction with other team members. Their strategic focus is at
the local implementation level, but they are working on a task with global
implementation and outcomes.

Figure 4.2 shows a gap in the diffusion of global information. Here, the
hierarchical levels of the Copy Exactly Initiative are overlaid on the structural levels
of the organization. There is a clearly visible gap, which could easily impact the
performance effectiveness of the teams/initiative. There is no representation in any
unit of the initiative at the level of manufacturing or area manager. This creates a
group that is focused on local production and functions without the same access to
the detailed global information available to others and with no direct strategic
impetus to engage at the global level. While this group may be aware of Copy
Exactly, it is not a primary responsibility for group members, and the resources used
for Copy Exactly activities may actually detract from accomplishing their duties.

In addition, the Core Team Members are all generally supervisors in
Advanced Manufacturing at the various locations, and there are sometime issues
with others such as area managers or product team managers, who are responsible
for production and the actual manufacturing work in the plant. They are not
represented in the project, but engineers working on Copy Exactly might be pulled
from daily production tasks to Copy Exactly-related advanced manufacturing tasks.
Tension arises when the demands of day-to-day activities and the demands of new

product and equipment decisions clash.

114

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

90 £282... 283m 300 ”we 8:9“.
.0235 .8596
2.3835 388a oEoboom - .omquam
.33. E... 5.; 5.83% ES. “.838 :20 H H
2335 - .0335 3865
268$ 38 5 33.05 .oz
Boa—as. Sauces. ,
535.2. .885 b 58» .88.... Lumfimmm
u

 

 

.3832 82

 

 

 

 

585.2 .521

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

95.88.. 28330

 

 

 

$5858 2633. EoEoomcaz

«Eco...
EoEo>an_
maoaczcoo

E3... 200

115

A related area of potential conflict may develop because CIT members may
be drawn from several areas. A team member may be specially assigned to work
for Copy Exactly as a part of his or her duties but be responsible to another
supervisor for the remainder of his or her daily duties. Team members estimate that
they spend from 4 to 20 hours a week working on Copy Exactly-related activities.
Such an arrangements can cause problems with accountability and performance
evaluation, especially if a supervisor is not otherwise involved in Copy Exactly.

Engineers at several locations reported that their supervisors often expected
them to finish other tasks before doing Copy Exactly work, which meant that the
engineers were forced to try to balance the work and accountability demands. As
several of them reported, they were not linked to the performance objectives of their
managers when they were doing Copy Exactly team work.

Another difference between the components is communications frequency.
Although all the groups have periodic face-to-face meetings, most regular
communication is via conference calls or email. The conference calls occur much
more frequently (weekly or biweekly versus monthly) for the teams as they compare
their progress on the details of the communization process. Participation in these
calls is requested and is recorded, although it is difficult for some engineers on the
teams to participate if a locally urgent task requires attention.

The conference calls seem to have taken on a certain role in the overall
communication of the CITs. Generally the calls provide an opportunity to report test
results or task progress. The telephone calls are a forum for setting up issues that

can then be discussed in greater depth face-to-face. CIT members regard face-to-

116

face meetings as the most productive way to communicate, although they sometimes
miss these meetings due to locally urgent tasks or local travel budget restrictions.

Face-to-face meetings are critical to team progress. As one team member put
it:

“The face-to-face meetings are where the tough decisions are made.

There is more time to interact than on the telecon. It is difficult to agree

and the biggest steps for Copy Exactly are made at the face-to-face

meetings.”

During this study each of the five teams had at least one face-to-face meeting.

These meetings usually lasted three to five days; they were held on a rotating basis
at each of the electronics plants. The team leader developed and distributed an
agenda. The team met in a conference or workroom at the plant. As expected, the
agenda contained updates on previously discussed items, new topics, and a plant
tour. On at least three occasions the meeting also allotted time to hear from supplier
representatives.

The Copy Exactly Initiative was well underway when this study began.
Because of the results that this project was generating, it was recommended as a
good ‘team’ to study—it is one of the best dispersed team efforts within Visteon.
The recommendation is also remarkable because it came from a manager in the
process leadership sector of the firm rather than the electronics systems area. One
of the teams within the initiative, the Print Reflow or Printers/Ovens Team, had also
been recognized with a CDQA Award, presented by Visteon top leadership, for
excellence in performance. Clearly the Electronics Division had much to be proud

of in the teams of the Copy Exactly Initiative.

117

Getting Oriented

A first introduction and interview meeting was held on September 29, 1998.
with a manager and a supervisor in the Electronics Division. Both men were
instrumental in the project’s ongoing success and serve in liaison capacities to parts
of the organization, up and down the hierarchy. The manager took some time to
give me an overview of Visteon strategies during this period as it becomes
increasingly independent of Ford Motor Company.

Within Visteon’s Electronics Division there were four separate SBUs.
However, there was no clear division between the domains of the individual SBUs;
in fact, one plant within the division was shared by multiple SBUs. The manager
described his role as that of a link between SBUs and the plants. Furthermore, his
operation provided links between the plants. The Design Factory was to play an
integrating role, and Copy Exactly was one of the processes used as a tool in this
integration effort.

The previous history of changes in strategic tactics that characterized the
business when it was the in-house supplier for Ford complicates plant integration
efforts. Each of the plants had evolved differently in response to Ford’s changing
business strategies. Now, Visteon was developing a strategy based on business
centers, rather than profit centers. This would further distance the plants from the
competition that previously characterized their relationships.

Commonization or standardization of the manufacturing process was another
strategic step in the evolution of Visteon. According to the manager, the company
was looking at the manufacturing arena and wanted to redeploy resources to reduce
duplication. At a recent nine-month review of the initiative, vice president and

118

general manager of electronic systems, Gary VanderHaagen, had wanted to
accelerate the commonization process. Not only was the process to move faster, but
also at a different level, with the introduction of Centers of Excellence, created for
specific aspects of the project at specific plants. The plants would be empowered
and accountable for delivering a specific process or solution. The plan was that
innovations would be shared with all the other plants.5

The matrix organization of the teams is designed to encourage integration by
having a member from each plant on each team. Such a team structure ensures
diversity of nationality and experience while also allowing the internal culture of
each plant input into the workings of the teams.

A final issue with the teams individually, and the project as a whole, is the
potential for creating knowledge and diffusing information, not only throughout the
corporation, but also in the supplier network as well. This group is at the edge of
becoming what Botkin calls a “knowledge community” (Botkin 1999). They are a
purposefully organized group with a shared goal and interest in transforming the
way Visteon designs and manufactures electronic automotive parts. In addition, they
have links to suppliers that already allow for the exchange of information.
Discussing shared interests might reveal even more points of mutual interest between
the plants and between the plants and suppliers. This dimension would help to

resolve one of the larger environmental dilemmas mentioned earlier. If closer ties

 

5 Although this plan was discussed during the time I observed the teams and met
with them, it was not implemented. Subsequent changes in leadership and
organizational structure may have ended this idea. One month after my initial
conversation at Visteon, Vander Haagen’s retirement was announced.

119

with suppliers could be forged, then there would be greater options for flexibility

and that would be value added when serving Visteon’s customers.

A Tutorial on the Manufacture of Printed Circuit Boards

One of the central elements of this story is the product. The printed circuit
board forms the basis of electronic components, and commonization of the
manufacturing process is the focus of the Copy Exactly Initiative. What follows will
serve as a description of the process as explained and as observed in a number of
electronics plants. While this explanation is not as thorough as the reader would
receive from any one of the engineers in this study, it will help to illustrate some of
the tasks described and to define unfamiliar terms used in this case study.

Production lines may be straight or u-shaped. At North Penn, they were u-
shaped rather than straight to conserve space and allow operators more easily to
service several machines. At Altec, portions of the lines were housed in a special
room to avoid the dust of the manufacturing floor. Tony Boccardi, an engineer at
North Penn, provided my first real explanation of the sequence of the circuit board
manufacturing process.6 The first machine on the line is a destacker that selects one
basic circuit board and starts it down the conveyor to the screen printer, where lead-
based solder paste is ‘squeegeed’ through a stencil of the circuit design onto the
board. At the screen printer an operator spoons a gray solder paste onto .the screen

from a small aluminum pie dish.

 

6 Tony is not to blame if my description contains erroneous information.

120

After the solder paste is screened onto the board, the board runs down
conveyors to a series of ‘chip shooters’—machines that mount chips to the surface
of the board. These machines vary according to the size and number of parts they
add to each board. Bigger components are added by a machine that operates at a
slower pace; even then, some of these pieces must also be glued to ensure that they
stay properly attached before the reflow process. The smaller electronic chips
currently are shipped on paper tapes that have each part encased in a plastic pocket.
These tapes are threaded through special tape cartridges.7 Backup cartridges are
kept on wire racks at the machine and spare rolls of tapes are brought over as
needed from a storeroom. Inside each machine there are a number of vacuum heads
that dispense the parts in the correct sequence onto the solder paste stenciled onto
the proper place on the board. Proper placement is checked by laser beams and
cameras as well as by an operator where visual verification is possible.

The boards then move into a reflow oven to reheat the solder until it flows to
firse the chips to the board. The finished boards are removed and transferred to
special containers to move them to the next phase of production. Across the aisle at
North Penn is the ‘second path,’ in which the backs of two-sided boards are
assembled, using a similar process. The work environment where boards are
assembled is clean and fairly quiet. People work at several machine stations and do
inspection. Each line has inspection stations with large round magnifying glasses.

There are also electronic testing devices. The u-shaped lines are equipped with

 

7 Tony Boccardi showed me a new type of dispenser that is much more
compact. The parts are packed in a plastic box that looks like a tictac box, which
will feed into the machine very differently and take up much less space.

121

‘gates’ that are activated by footpads in the floor. The operator steps on the pad, the
line stops, and a gate is created as one segment of the conveyor lifts up. After the
worker steps through, the section closes and work continues. These gates apparently
are an innovation in the line design that made it possible for one person to more
easily service a larger number of machines.

This description captures the broad outlines of the process, but there are
many more details that teams of experts must carefully analyze in each phase of the
board design and manufacture. These details are the ‘bread-and-butter’ tasks of the

Copy Exactly teams.

The Local View: The Plants

In this study I visited four locations: the Altec Plant in Chihuahua, Mexico;
the Markham Plant in Toronto, Canada: the North Penn Electronics Facility in
Lansdale, Pennsylvania; and the Design Factory in Dearborn. Michigan. The other
plants include Palmela in Portugal; Cadiz in Spain; Enfield in England; and Arbor in
Brazil. Each location visited in the study will be described in this section. Table
4.2 shows the name, location, and primary products for each site visited as well as

selected demographic data for the manufacturing sites.

122

Table 4.2: Visteon Locations Included in the Study

 

 

 

 

 

=
Name of Facility Location Primary Products Data Collected
North Penn Lansdale, Air suspensions. electronic engine Plant Tour
Electronics Pennsylvania, controls, mass airflows, Observations
Facility United States temperature sensors, anti-lock Interviews
braking systems, ignition systems Survey
Technical Center Dearbom, All Visteon products and systems Observations n
Michigan, United —support and research related to Interviews
States electronics Survey
Altec Chihuahua, Mexico Audio systems, instrument Plant Tour
clusters, speed control, vehicle Observations
controls Interviews
Survey
Markham Markham, Ontario, Restraint control modules (single- Plant Tour
Canada point, multi-point and adaptive), Interviews
side crash sensors, body Survey
electronics control modules,
passive remote anti-theft system
controls, total anti-theft systems,
single/dual zone electronic
automatic temperature control
modules

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Technical Center in Dearborn, Michigan, United States

The central office for the entire Copy Exactly Initiative is located at the
Electronics Technical Center in Dearborn. The manager in this office has overall
responsibility for the project and the staff of engineers and technical specialists that
support this work. The offices visited during this study are located in a multistoried
office building within sight of both Ford World Headquarters and Visteon World
Headquarters. Most of the people active on this project work in individual cubicles
with enough space for a desk, computer, and reference materials as well as the
occasional snapshot or cartoon. The area bustles with activity and there is a low hum

as people work. The people in this office are assigned to teams or work on computer-

123

related development of prototypes. For example, many of the people who support the
Design Rules Team (see below), setting the parameters for printed circuit board layouts,
work in Dearbom.

This group in Dearbom is an application engineering group called the Design
Factory. They are a core product design group, often referred to as the ‘how people,’
whose task is to help the ‘what people’ manufacture the product more effectively. The
manager expressed a real sense of urgency about how well Copy Exactly could improve
performance to meet the aggressive goals set by Visteon leadership. In its new form
as a Ford enterprise, Visteon must become more self-sufficient. The business goals are
to double profits in five years and become extremely competitive in the auto supplier
market. Of course, resources to accomplish these goals are controlled and constrained
so growth will have to come from becoming more ‘lean.’

This drive to become more cost effective was the most important impetus for the
Copy Exactly Initiative. The manager explained some of the early history of the
initiative, describing the benchmarking trips and the visit to Intel. Visteon’s goal with
the process was to commonize all chip manufacturing processes and equipment in
electronics manufacturing sites across the company, in order to establish consistency
and predictability in their chip production.

He hoped that people in Visteon would begin to acquire a mindset that will
encourage greater independence from Ford culture, as well as a greater sense of
belonging to Visteon. One of his concerns was that people needed to give up their
internal competition and work together to attract and retain Ford’s business, as well as

the business of other customers. It will be a challenge to create large-scale change in

124

organizational attitudes and activities in order to develop entrepreneurial spirit within
the workforce.

Approximately one month after this first meeting, Craig Muhlhauser took
over after Charlie Szuluk retired. Marcos Oliviera, who now has control of the
advanced manufacturing and technology section, replaced Gary VanderHaagen.

Copy Exactly had another challenge—to win the confidence of a new champion.

Altec in Chihuahua, Mexico

The factory in Chihuahua seems to be at the edge of a rapidly moving urban
sprawl. It is a large moss-green and maroon structure embellished with architectural
elements that might be cousins to the flying buttress. The manufacturing complex
contains several buildings with designated areas for manufacturing, training, and a
main cafeteria inside (we also ate in an adjacent canteen area with tables and chairs
outside and more informal food service). The parking lot contains a large area
where red-and-white buses pick up employees and drop them off. Once we go
through security and receive our badges, we walk into an open yard between two
manufacturing buildings. There is a small building containing an infirrnary with an
ambulance and a bank with an automated teller machine.

Altec produces thousands of audio systems and instrument clusters per year.
The manufacturing floor bustles with blue-smocked employees working at a number
of assembly lines. In the ‘clusters’ section, each assembly line had its own set of
documentation and data that was displayed at the head of the area. There were
charts for mission development group, production, OEE, scrap, andagendas/minutes.
among others. In addition, there is a separate room for the printers and ovens used

125

to create the necessary electronic circuit boards. Banners and posters with Ford
Production System slogans hang about the building.

Inside the manufacturing areas, the facility is clean, well lit, and seemingly
modern. It is clearly high volume, with a huge variety of products. The number of
people populating the workroom floor ‘feels’ too high. On average these production
workers are paid about $2.50 an hour (including benefits). They also receive meals
and transportation to and from work each day. It is a non-union facility, and one of
the engineers commented that it is easier to move people from job to job without the
rules that unions want to impose.

The labor market is reported to be fiercely competitive, as workers leave one
company and move to the next without a thought. At the time of this study, TRW
had just opened a plant in Chihuahua; and hourly as well as salaried workers had
moved to that firm.

The Printers/Ovens team was meeting for its regular face-to-face meeting
when this visit to Altec occurred. Their sessions were held in the training building,
where rooms were named after famous scientists such as Pasteur, Curie, and
Einstein. This facility was pleasant and equipped with a computer room where the
Visteon employees eagerly read their ‘profs’ mail each day.8

Although this facility had all the linkages and trappings of a Visteon facility,
it technically is not Visteon. The employees do not have the privileges of
Ford/Visteon employees and this situation was raised by some as an irritant. One

engineer commented that he was reminded of the lack of equality at every

 

8 ‘Profs’ was the word used to describe the internal email system.

126

interaction. It was unclear exactly what economic or legal conditions caused this
arrangement, but it was clear that at least some of the Mexicans felt that it put them

at a personal disadvantage.

Markham in Markham Ontario, Canada

Opened in 1961, the Markham Plant is in a suburban area at the northern
edge of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The neighborhood around the plant contains
some residential areas, as well as a number of what appear to be newer commercial
properties—office buildings as well as manufacturing facilities. The plant itself is a
long, low building of just two to three stories. One enters through a security
arrangement in the front lobby. Visitors must call to receive an escort through the
locked doors.

Markham manufactures a wide variety of sensors (restraint controls and crash
sensors, for example), anti-theft devices, temperature control modules, and many
other products. The actual workroom floor is fairly open and appears quite large.
There are a number of assembly and production areas, but they are not heavily
staffed. The electronic components are largely produced by machinery carefully
arranged in straight lines or u-shapes. Each component machine is selected based on
its capacity to produce certain parts to a precise set of specifications. The machines
are tended by a mostly female work force that wears white smocks made from an
antistatic material. These workers must monitor the parts levels, restock the
machines, and do quality inspections. Although most of the operators were women,

the work force did appear culturally diverse. The International Association of

127

Machinists (IAM) and the Canadian Automobile Workers (CAW) represent segments
of the work force.

Markham has made a reputation for itself by receiving the Canadian
equivalent of the Malcolm Baldridge Award for Quality. In addition, the plant has
been recognized by Visteon leadership for meeting two of the important strategic
manufacturing goals set by Charlie Szuluk. Cycle time, the time needed for material
to arrive at the plant dock, be processed, and leave as product, has been reduced
from 12 days to less than one (Vasilash 1997; Buchholz 1998). In addition, by
October, 1997, the plant has reduced “finished product inventory from 16 to 3 days
and parts returned by customers from 1900 to 130 parts per million” (89). When
visited for this study, the plant was showing its responsiveness by building a

manufacturing cell to meet the specific requirements of one customer.

North Penn Electronics Facility in Lansdale, Pennsylvania, United States

The North Penn Electronics Facility opened in its present building in 1990.
The building is set into a suburban landscape with rolling hills and trees. Ambrish
Gor, manager of advanced manufacturing technology, and my contact person at the
plant, remembers the older facility and helping to design this one. At the time of
this study the plant newsletter was reporting the demolition of this earlier structure.
When the product line shifted from radios to electronic components, a different,
more sterile environment became important. The present building is divided into
two wings, with an automated storage and retrieval system at the center. Automated

vehicles move about the facility carrying materials.

128

The A side of the plant is the manufacturing area, where the environmental
and emission control products are assembled. These products are highly
sophisticated units that control and align the environmental functions of the vehicle
such as exhaust and emission control, fuel mix, and air conditioning. The emission
control product is a core component that directs many other internal engine
activities.

Operators wear protective gloves and clothing, usually a blue or white lab
coat made from antistatic material. Most workers wore blue smocks over casual
clothing. Skilled trades people wore light blue shirts with patches and darker blue
pants. The work force throughout the building appeared quite diverse. I saw many
African Americans as well as Asians working in assembly. There were as many
women as men. In the offices men outnumbered women, but there was still some
diversity. In general, the atmosphere throughout the plant was busy but relaxed.
People chatted as they worked; and there were small areas with a desk or two,
which appeared to be break or meeting areas, where people sat, read newspapers,
and drank coffee. Meetings seemed to occur naturally in the work area, as well as
while groups of skilled trades people or engineers walked about or stood and
observed machines.

North Penn has been recognized for its efforts to become leaner and more
cost effective. As of September, 1998, “parts per million returns are now running
below 100 ppm, versus 2,900 ppm in 1990” (McCormack I998: 109). In addition,
high ranking Visteon executive Steve Delaney says that “Managing material flow
efficiently is the key to success” (McCormack I998: 109). North Penn is making a
transition to cell-based manufacturing. which is reducing cycle time and inventory.

129

These changes are happening in a unionized facility where the United Auto Workers
(UAW) represents hourly workers. A longstanding agreement exists between the
union and plant management, which allows a team-based system with high levels of

employee involvement (Chaneski 1998).

The Teams

Five teams are the focus of this study: four of the nine functional teams in
the Copy Exactly Initiative, and the Core Team or Coach/Champions, who have
more of an oversight and coordination role. The plan for Copy Exactly created
functional teams for certain parts of the printed circuit board manufacturing process.
Generally, the team consisted of one representative from each plant and one from
the Technical Center in Dearborn.

No engineer could serve on more than two teams, but a couple did, in fact
serve on two. In the box that follows is a list of facts that are true of all the teams.
Reporting on the shared facts in this way will allow the team descriptions to focus
more on elements that may be unique to each team.

Facts about the teams:

° The teams operate as self-directed work teams.

0 Each member is expected to contribute eight hours a week to the work of

the team.

- Teams leaders are elected by each CIT and approved by the Core Team.

- Teams have a representative from each plant selected because of expertise

in that area of circuit board manufacture.

- Teams meet two to four times a year for face-to-face sessions.

° Teams arrange for telephone conferences every week or every two weeks.

- Each functional team in the Copy Exactly Initiative is responsible for

developing a set of BKM’s for a segment of the printed circuit board
manufacture and design process.

130

° Team members generally shared the consistent overall goal of the initiative
i.e., to create exactly the same processes for manufacture of each
electronic product at each facility in the Visteon system.

- Team members are engineers.

- 71% of team members are between 31 and 45 years old.

- 27 % report working overseas at some point.

- 45.5% report living overseas at some point.

- Fourteen team members report speaking three or more languages (English

and Portuguese are the two most reported languages.)

- Eighteen report speaking only English.

- Team members report an average of 12 years of employment with the

company.

- Decisions are made by consensus of those attending each meeting.

- Each team reports the use of meeting protocols such as agendas and

minutes, which are generally organized by team leaders.

In studying and analyzing these data, it is important to recognize that it was
not part of the design of this project to interview every member of the teams
studied. Distances made it impossible to go to every location and the valuable face-
to-face time was scheduled for business use. Thus, any discussion of an individual
team is based on a partial sampling of the team. Additionally, some teams are not
as large as others, because some facilities had not yet appointed replacements. or
team members were absent at the time of the visit.

Observations took place over two or more days for each team. In addition,
after the work sessions, there were often social events sessions such as dinners or

shopping trips in local markets that offered more informal insights into the

relationships and interactions among members of dispersed teams.

The Printers/Ovens Team
One of the first impressions that the Printer/Ovens Team made during the

observation of their face-to-face was the care they took to listen to each other,

131

waiting for speakers to finish ideas or thoughts completely. The people on this team
appeared respectful and yet relaxed with each other. One member put it this way:
“Consensus at this meeting was easy but they are reasonable. I can say what I
think, and these guys will listen.” Their meeting was well organized and effectively
run. As was typical, this team leader took his job seriously as “coach, organizer and
secretary.”

Each member contributed and participated freely. A new member joined the
group at this face-to-face. He was welcomed and integrated easily into both official
and social activities of the team. In fact, this introduction was so congenial that the
new engineer felt comfortable joking that he was waiting for his welcome gifts.
Everyone laughed, and then laughed again the next day, when the team leader
started the day with a “serious” welcome speech and the presentation of the
‘welcome gift’—a 3-inch rubber soccer ball.

Analysis of the team’s interview responses revealed that the shared
understandings among the members were distinct. For example, when asked what
came to mind when they heard the words Copy Exactly, Printers/Ovens Team
members used the words “sharing” and “working together” more frequently than the
members of other teams. The ability of this team to work well together is certainly
one factor in its success.

When asked to estimate the average amount of time that he or she spent on
team tasks, team members estimated an average of 17.5 hours a week. This
indicates that members are able to spend a reasonable amount of their work time on

C0py Exactly Initiative efforts. The general consensus among team members was

132

that each one was selected by a supervisor or manager at their home location based
on his or her specific expertise in the technical area upon which the team focused.

Goal clarity was high among the members of this team. All but one
mentioned that the specific goal was to reach consensus about the best-known
methods for the print/reflow process, which would then improve quality and value
for the customer as well as save money. One member expressed a bit of cynicism.
saying that the goal “should be to set best practices, but it comes down to money.”
Another member reframed the goal of the process stating, “The goal is to transfer
knowledge from team members to other team members.”

While team members believed that they “worked well with a well-defined
problem that could be reduced to common goals.” they felt that the process “doesn’t
work as well when there is a big issue with smaller, plant-specific goals.” This
illustrates a recurring theme among all the teams—the juxtaposing of local interests
and global programs. “There can be big conflict between team priorities versus
plant priorities. The different SBUs and the work for the plant—those are put first.”

This conflict of interest seems to have two dimensions. One is clearly the
potential for conflict between the plant’s interests and those of the company. There
is “competition among members from the plants to protect their plant and move
business to their plant.” A second conflict of interest occurs internally in the plant,
where there is “a separation of team and daily ops [operations].” As one engineer
said, “Daily life distracts people with other priorities, and the face-to-face meetings
reinforce the habit of considering Copy Exactly as important.”

Despite this tension, the Printers/Ovens team members expressed little

frustration with team interaction. They listed management support or commitment

133

and communication as two of the top needs for team success. Trust was also
considered important. “Without trust there is no buy-in from the team; and while
that might work in the short run, it would not in the long run.” When questioned
about barriers to effective team performance, team members targeted lack of trust
and management support. One team member said, “Management is the biggest
barrier to team performance. If you are on a team working for global improvement.
and if local management doesn’t support it—they have to buy in—then the different
direction of the group may mean it won’t happen.”

At the beginning of this study, it seemed that diversity would be an obvious
barrier since that was an inherent characteristic of global teams. Team members did
not support this. Their comments were almost universally positive. When asked
whether diversity was an issue, one member from an overseas plant replied:

“I don’t think so—that’s something that is not an obstacle, (it) makes

it more rich. We are from every race, every country, and at the end

of the week that has made it rich with discussion. I feel better in

Copy Exactly—because we are at the same level of knowledge and

experience. We understand each other. On other teams we have to

explain, so more similar knowledge also helps.”

Another engineer recognized that diversity added to the richness of their
discussion: “I like different cultures and to make people equally respected, and
equally important, adds to the discussion.”

This team also appreciated the contribution that social interaction made to
their technical progress. One team member remarked, “I see a value as I am more
aware of the little things that offend people.” Another engineer observed, “It is
easier to work with a person you know, because you know the good and the

bad—the background both cultural and technical.” There was a clear appreciation

I34

for technical expertise. which was as important as cultural or other areas of diversity.
A team member summed up the feelings about diversity very well, when he said.
“The biggest lesson for me was the value of diversity. The experience of diversity
in this group is intrinsic to the experience and it also has great value for the
corporation.”

Working together was a powerful experience for this team and one of the
pleasant outcomes. A more formal recognition of their work came when the team
won the CDQA in 1998. These outcomes were not part of the formal compensation
that team members received. In fact, these other rewards were described as “not in
the compensation.” The recognition achieved through winning the CDQA had a big
impact on this team and was for more than one member a highlight of the team
experience. One team member put it this way, “We get recognition for a good job
and there’s the CDQA, but it doesn’t affect merit or compensation.”

The final item in each interview was a request for the person to tell one story
they remembered, or a lesson learned. For the Printers/Ovens Team the experiences
shared winning the CDQA and working together were part of everyone’s “lesson”
answer. As one engineer recalled, “I guess the biggest lesson was being able to get
all the people from around the world to work together and make the right decisions

together. It is powerful if people want it to be.”

The SMD Placement Team

SMD is an acronym for surface mount device. This team works to establish
common equipment and processes for the portion of the circuit board manufacturing
process in which electronic chips and components are placed on the board. During

135

the face-to-face for this team, a thread of concern about matching ran through many
of the items up for discussion. For example, the team spent quite a long time
discussing the fact that management found it easier to use numbers as measures.
rather than to take the time to understand how matching really works. One result of
this situation was the dilemma faced by a plant that could not afford to make an
equipment change or that had problems scheduling a specific process in a certain
way due to union contract rules. The plant was perceived as intransigent or not in
compliance even though some required changes were more systemic than the team
was authorized to address.

Another aspect of this discussion on metrics was the level of detail that
should be considered acceptable in the matrices. At this time the SMD matrices
were very detailed, and the team was discussing whether they should be reviewed to
remove some items that might represent too fine a level of detail. As one team
member explained it:

“There is real concern about using just the number and using this as a

tool. Numbers are important to other groups—it’s on their objectives-

where are the numbers? Where are the numbers? [My manager] runs

around gathering the numbers, and they are often the only things

understood by outsiders. Once a month those numbers are important

to [executives in Dearborn]. Maybe they are too detailed.”

This discussion reflects the concern of individual plants about their ability to be
effective and viable, as well as the concern arising when metrics are used that do not
adequately reflect a complex situation.

In one very real sense, the team was highlighting another aspect of the global

versus local discussion that was raised by the printers/ovens team. When

management at a global level looks for results, the details are complex and more

136

9

difficult to understand than “numbers.’ Within the team it is clear that “Copy
Exactly tries to streamline the commonization process.” Alignment, however, is not
easy—as we hear from one team member who said, “Team objectives are not always
aligned with plant objectives, so we have to pull people away from the local. There
is a tension between local and global Visteon vision.”

The tensions outside the team seem to stir tensions inside the team. There is
less agreement on some critical issues. For example, when asked to describe the
goal for Copy Exactly, the team members interviewed gave four different answers:

I) “to create similar equipment for every plant”

2) “to take product and move it quickly”

3) “to come down to one or two suppliers for price advantage and support”

4) “to commonize software”

It may be that this variety in answers reflects a lack of agreement among team
members, and that can have an effect on overall team effectiveness.

When asked about metrics, each team member did identify percent matching
as one metric; and the team leader added attendance. Each identified his or her
supervisor or manager as the person whose performance expectations had to be met.

The team members’ answers varied again when they were asked what the
team needed for success. The items identified were time and money to work on
team objectives, manpower in the form of representation from each location, and
agreement within the team. The engineer who wanted agreement was referring to
the ongoing discussion about chip shooters, as Markham buys the Universal brand,
and the other plants buy Panasonic. Apparently this is a long-standing issue. The

team member who felt the need for more manpower expanded his answer by saying

that having representatives from each plant facilitated information flow and built a

137

network that provided the “means of accessing, changing, and modifying
information.” Despite competition between plants, the SMD Team at least had
become convinced that there was a great deal of benefit to sharing information.
Another team member said, “Sharing information saves time, so we each could
launch a different concept but spread [it] to every plant.”

Several members of this team considered the face-to-face meeting the most
important factor for success:

“It is paramount to success to get together and lock ourselves in a

room and hash out issues. It appears to be the only time that difficult

issues can be resolved. The telephone doesn’t work, and it’s not just

language—requests over the phone don’t take it, because it is easy for

people to forget and get pulled off.”

Another team member returned to the issues of local support for Copy Exactly when
he expressed his opinion about why face-to-face meetings are considered important:

“Phone and email may not work as well, because at the local level

support is not as strong as it should be. It has come up as a

concern—not getting appropriate level of support or commitment to

team activities. The plants support the product first. What can be

done?”

This person was hoping that the team members would build stronger relationships at
the face-to-face meetings and that these bonds might motivate people to work harder
to accomplish the Copy Exactly work in their own plants.

Other barriers to team performance effectiveness were identified. One team
member was concerned about personnel changes within the team. “It takes a long
time to name a successor, sometimes weeks or months at other plants, and there is
no one to call in or to be at the meetings.” He was also concerned that once a
person was named to the team, it was often hard to bring him or her “up to speed”

because there is “no cross training at personnel change.” He cited an example in

138

which a senior engineer who spoke Spanish was able to help a new person using
that language, and that “made the learning curve shorter.” Interestingly enough.
language was the other barrier identified. The concern was that the non-English
speaking team members “don’t say much.”

Diversity on this team was also perceived as an asset rather than as a
problem. Each team member’s comments acknowledged the important contribution
that the expertise of the different members made to the work of the group. One
member said, “I guess every person is truly experienced in all aspects of SMD at the
other plants, and a lot of expertise helps the team.” One member did offer a
warning, “It [diversity] has not deteriorated the performance of the team. We need
to be aware, and not make it an issue, or it can mushroom as an issue.”

On this team, as on others. rewards were not linked to performance. As one
man put it, “There is no link between team performance and rewards. There are no
consequences positive or negative. It’s all personal initiative.” Another member
echoed this, saying that “Better performance is not linked to a higher raise. The
reward is intrinsic.” Although the team apparently received a plaque in recognition
of their work, at least one member felt that there was some reward in knowing that
“the other plants have the same problems.”

The number one change that this team attributed to Copy Exactly was the
cost savings realized through more targeted equipment testing and assessment since
one plant was now able to test new equipment and share the resultant information
with everyone. One team member commented that communication was better now,
and “That makes the job easier.” Another remembered a fight over wave soldering
machines that delayed a launch but got the proven machine. The last response to the

139

interview question about lessons learned was very positive: “I’ll remember the
successes like now—the global divisional processes. They were once a figment of

my imagination, and now they’re implemented and rolled out. It’s fabulous.”

The Design Rules Team

The Design Rules Team is responsible for the creation and diffusion of the
rules that govern the layout of printed circuit board in the electronics systems at
Visteon. Their work is detailed and complicated. They work to establish the
placement rules for all the components of the circuit board. The rules are designed
to fit the component specifications, so as new parts enter the system, new rules must
frequently be created to accommodate them. One engineer described the process
from another perspective:

“For example, we have a production problem—maybe a solder bridge

that requires repair, and we want zero defects, so we have to change

the rule within the board to fix the problem. Then we submit the rule

change, and analyze it, and formulate a solution, and then submit it.

Everyone should then use it or c0py it exactly in each plant.”
The Design Rules Team face-to-face meeting took place in early November 1998, at
the Electronics Technical Center in Dearborn. The meeting happened against the
backdrop of a change in leadership. The atmosphere was charged with the surprise
that accompanied the retirement of Charlie Szuluk and the promotion of Craig
Muhlhauser. Although the new leadership caused some uncertainty among the
people in the Electronics Division, since Szuluk was seen as a real advocate and

supporter of electronics due to his electronics background, the reaction was generally

positive.

140

The face-to-face meeting was also attended by a number of engineers who
support the team but are headquartered in the Dearbom area. Several managers
welcomed the group and addressed the meeting.

One of these managers announced a new phase of Copy Exactly, to be called
Centers of Excellence.’ Why this topic was introduced at this meeting is not clear.
Few details were forthcoming when the inevitable questions arose. A short section
of dialogue is contained in the following text box. The dialogue offers a glimpse of
the concerns felt by team members as they deal with the dilemma of local interests
versus global interests. The plant representative is worried about the new proposed
plan for Centers of Excellence. He is concerned that the plant does not have the
appropriate resources to compete to be a center; if the plant is not a center, does that
mean that its output is not excellent or vital to the larger corporate success?

The potential global strategic importance of Centers of Excellence as one
component of a commonization plan was not part of the discussion. There was no
indication of how this plan might benefit individual plants, nor was there any
reassurance that the plants could all consider themselves vital to the final outcome of
the strategic plan. [Concerns such as these appear justified because, less than seven
months later, layoffs occurred among the engineers at the plant this man represents]

This dialogue does not represent ideas unique to the Design Rules Team but
was merely observed during that face-to-face meeting. However, it is important
because it focuses on the core of the issues surrounding the local versus global

dilemma that these dispersed team members face. Although the members of this

 

° The name was later changed to Centers of Product Development.

141

team share common opinions on the meaning of Copy Exactly and a belief that they
were selected for their expertise, they are still divided by deep concerns about
potential outcomes for their home locations. The concerns deepen when the rules
and processes of the Copy Exactly Initiative force increased costs on to an individual
plant. Every bit of increased cost is seen as impeding the assignment of potential
product to the plant.

Another member of this team expresses his concerns over the company’s
drive for profits and how it will affect both his job and those of his coworkers when
he says

“Each area is so fine-tuned it’s impossible for one person to do it all.

At phone conferences there are questions about rule changes.

Normally we vote for it and collect data to back up change, and then

the rest of the gang is going to adopt it. All plants have done this.

Sometimes there is a little cooked up way of reporting and sometimes

kind of competition. We’re open-minded, but if we tune it too well,
they send the job to cheap labor. It’s a concern about losing jobs.”

142

Conversation Extract from Design Rules Face-to-Face, November 4, 1998

i

 

 

 

Question from Dearbom-based Team Member A: “Centers of Excellence—how do we fit
into the puzzle?”

Answer from Manager B: “Well, it’s not formalized yet, but it is important to be aware of how
we might interact. If a plant is selected, that plant is pilot and needs design rules to be copied

exactly!”

Question from Dearbom-based Team Member A: “Would we be facilitators? Would we push
it to others or parts of it?”

Answer from Manager B: “This is a shared mental model.”

Second answer from Manager C: “There’s lots of mental models. It depends. Plants met,
manufacturing managers met, there was good rich discussion, but more is needed."

Question from plant representative I): All the plants are similar—how are we going to come
up with one that is excellent? Any plant could be the best.

 

Answer from Manager C: “It’s a focus idea, task. focus resources, too. Read that as you will.
Some plants run lean, some have lots of talent.”

Reply from plant representative D: “These plants have lots of engineers. North Penn has lots
but [my plant] has few—how to balance that?”

Answer from Manager C: “Not 100% commonize—does the Center of Excellence understand
all the plants . . . the real details.”

Reply from plant representative D: “Money is real reason—everyone knows how to get to
l00%. The constraint is money.”

Rebuttal from Manager C: “The large contractors are $6—7 billion companies who are triple

our size. They are running technology centers and can show that to the customers. For us, we
bring customers to a lab in the back—covered with dust—not a real good sell job. We need a
showcase.”

Question from Dearbom-based Team Member A: “In these technical centers are they
separate—like prototype lines or take existing lines? How do you handle conversion?”

Answer from Manager B: “That’s not defined yet. There are lots of mental models; just be
aware—look for it—think about how might plug in.”

Question from plant representative D: “Yes, the machines are not the same. The
name—Centers of Excellence—does it mean that one is not good?”

 

 

l

 

 

143

Another member of this team describes his experience as a team member with the
pressures of local responsibilities versus his Copy Exactly work. His experiences
point out a tension between the need for short-term results and long-term results. It
is not always apparent that the long-term work of creating effective design rules and
ensuring their use is one essential for zero-defect product quality and cost
effectiveness.

“1 have two functions—tech and CFT cluster (cross functional team

for the instrument cluster). I am 100% technician and CFT is

definitely 80% of the time. There is a huge conflict for time. My

manager felt the CFT came before Design Rules, so I had to get

results on CFT. There is less opportunity to get results in design

rules. Design rules need time, investigation, and computer updates.”

Metrics are problematic for team members who are unclear about how to
determine when rules are commonized and how to measure percent of match. The
words of one team member sum up the opinions of the rest,

“That’s tough. How many parts are commonized and with what

percent of commonization? It’s difficult. because it is a moving target.

New parts are coming all the time. Now we can’t even put a number

on it. It’s unrelenting frustration that you can’t say at the end of the

day that you’re successful.”

Given this level of frustration, it doesn’t seem so surprising that the interviewed
members of this team chose simple markers for success. One engineer reports that
he knows the team is performing well if they “simply during the conference call stay
on track with the discussion on the proposal.” Another team member says, “It feels
good when you feel like you’ve accomplished something. The team performed well.
It went through the steps and it worked.”

When the interview questions shift to what the team needs to be successful,

the team expresses desires for both tangible and intangible resources. One team

144

member says, “All the managers need to be more involved in Copy Exactly
activities to understand the purpose of the initiative.” Another team member says.
“Money is another resource.” A third member says, “The team is struggling with a
commonized drafting system to be used worldwide, so if a sketch is submitted. we
all use a common format.” It seems as though one engineer is frustrated with the
team’s inability to deal with systemic problems when he says,

“We need some cross functional team work—association with other

Copy Exactly teams like solder, placement, and PWB. I know the

logistics of a global team are difficult. Many things can go wrong,

especially on the phone.”

Problems with language and telephone communications were also mentioned
when team members were asked about the impact of diversity. One engineer said,
“From a technical point of view, I think what I’ve seen is a lot of plants are a little
intimidated and a little, maybe embarrassed, because they can’t get their point
across, due to the difficulty in speaking and understanding. The phone is garbled
and makes it more difficult.” Another team member reported, “No it [diversity]
doesn’t come out in the team. It’s a non-issue. In technical issues the problems go
across cultures.” Variety or diversity in points of view can be “both positive and
negative, double edged, but the possible impact is of more benefit.”

Only two team members answered the question about rewards and how they
were related to the team’s performance. In both cases they indicated that there were
no real rewards. except possibly some satisfaction. One said, “I don’t see any

impact on performance reviews.” The other said, “The advantage is in having

problems solved.”

I45

E:-

Team members have a matter-of-fact attitude about their work in some ways.
For example, when asked about the role of organizational leadership, one team
member responded, “They impact resources, but they’re busy with something else
and are never presented with the true details. It would be helpful if the leadership
visited the guy doing the details to figure out what’s happening.”

Since Copy Exactly began, the team feels that there have been changes in the
ways people work together and help each other “to solve similar problems.” One
said, “I have learned to respect the opinion of others, of all team members. It’s a

big lesson growing to respect them even more. There is rapport and friendship.”

The Wave/Selective Solder Team

One of the team members interviewed for this study said that when he heard
the words “COpy Exactly,” he thought of “a gathering of experts, sharing technology
with the positives and negatives that go along—trying to protect the plant and still
see the bigger picture.” When this team was observed at the face-to-face, their
agenda included a presentation by a group from one of their suppliers. The
discussion before the supplier representatives came was as interesting as watching
the subsequent interaction. As the team was going through the agenda for the three
days, they were fine tuning the items. The following text box contains the dialogue

that developed as the team added to the agenda item on suppliers.

I46

 

—
—7 a

Team Member A: “Suppliers”—need to get a support plan from Equipco so supplier education
goes on list of objectives”

Team Member B: “ah... Understand Equipco’s support plan for BKMs 2000 [machine model]
on list.”

Team Member A: “What else do we want to know from Equipco?”

Team Member C: “Ask about their plan and list the items included in support plan—Walter and
Sergio getting the worst support—are they willing to continue with equipment suppliers’ needs?

Team Member A: “I got a note from Pascal [supplier representative] that he wants to come to
weekly meetings—he’s speaking out of both sides of his mouth—when they continue to give us
poor plant support. I made it clear as possible to Pascal to only talk about support but you know
how suppliers try to pull the wool over our eyes.”

 

 

 

The suspicion that team members expressed toward this supplier was based
on a history of poor support for soldering equipment that the company had
purchased. The supplier representatives were waiting in the meeting room after
lunch. The team appeared suspicious of this group from the outset. The
presentation hyped how much Equipco has changed and reorganized with a new
structure that will allow more responsiveness. The firm asserted that it is trying to
be responsive to its customers. For example, they have established a new call center
with an 800 number that is staffed 24 hours a day and available worldwide. When
one team member, who had complained of poor support for over a year, asked about
the global dimensions of this service, he was told that the typical response time is 15
minutes. In a follow-up comment the same team member said, “the global service is
important for people to know—if after hours we call, it is dramatic problem and
we’ve tried a lot of highly complicated stuff already, so your responsiveness needs
to be at that level.” This comment did not receive a response. Instead, one of the
supplier reps began to explain the startup of “a total customer satisfaction group, and

all company representatives will have pagers, cell phones, computers, etc.”

147

The presentation reached a new level of intensity when one of the supplier
representatives explained that his company had stopped building a machine that is
important to Visteon. He followed this up with a slide put together as he said, “just
for Ford.” The team was not impressed, especially as Visteon has more of these
machines than anyone else in the world. Spare parts availability became an issue
and there was a volley of intense dialogue over the length of time the company will
maintain parts for the machine.

Clearly the supplier was trying to minimize its responsibility for supporting
this product; and the customers on this team were concerned. Parts failures or the
unavailability of parts could jeopardize some “high-profile products that rely on the
components made by this machine.”

After sparring back and forth, the team members related examples of poor
support and machine performance. The supplier representatives appeared to squirm
as they listened. The end result was that the supplier and the team agreed to a firm
60-day timeline during which they would determine their needs and the risks they
face.

Finally, the discussion dropped off, and the representatives left. It felt as
though the team was dissatisfied with the meeting. and this feeling was expressed by
one team member who said, “Same shit, different smell.” The entire team spent the
next few minutes in a very cohesive, us-against-them mood trying to figure out how
to resolve this problem the best way. Overall, neither they nor the supplier
representatives were able to connect in a way that would ensure a mutually

beneficial relationship. This is serious. because if auto parts industry experts are

148

correct, Visteon needs to build a collaborative relationship with suppliers as an
important component for success.

When these team members were interviewed, they were consistent in their
belief that they were selected for their expertise. One team member expanded his
response by saying that an important consideration was whether the person could
deal at the process level rather than the product level. In effect, he said, “We have
people who are experts in certain equipment—specialists in optimizing the process.”

The team’s weekly teleconference calls are an hour in length and the team
leader gathers input from team members, then sends the agenda out before the
meeting. However, one team member says, “The face-to-face meetings are where
the tough decisions are made. There is more time to interact than on the telecon. It
is difficult to agree, and the biggest steps for Copy Exactly are made at the face-to-
face meetings.” The team members estimated that an average of 10.3 hours per
week was spent on Copy Exactly Initiative work and they generally agreed on the
goals of the project.

When asked about the metrics by which team performance is measured, the
team members each mentioned percent of match, with cost savings and quality as
alternatives. As one team member put it,

“Money savings is one key driver—by commonizing we see how

matched we are. Overall quality is another, but we have done little to

achieve that so far, because we had to get equipment in line, and so

now design rules make sense. Quality will be significant. Percent of

match for each plant to the BKMs is another metric.”

Team members also felt accountable to their own personal expectations as well as
those of their team mates and their immediate supervisors. When feedback is

received, it is most meaningful from co-workers such as the others on the team. In

149

fact, it seems generally rare for team members to receive feedback from anyone
outside the team itself.

There were a number of suggestions about what the team needed to be
successful. One engineer said:

“I would recommend to have a face-to-face first. It happened to me,

and I didn’t know any names or faces, and I wished not to have to

talk. In a face-to-face you break the ice, and the guys are people, so

that the next telecon you connect the voice and the face, and it’s

easier to talk.”

Another of the team members made the following suggestions: “Representation from
each facility, and then the team needs a budget . . . each team needs direction—to
have the objectives worked out and whatever it takes to bring our ideas to reality.”
A final series of issues was addressed by a team member who said:

“We need continuous management focus at [the manager’s] level. We

need money for actual plans and for travel. Travel is a big fight

because the managers at the plants have to be convinced. Sometimes

I get ‘beat up’ when they ask how their specific plant will benefit.

There is still a plant focus. The global focus is not there. They are

still measured by plant-based measures. There is a conflict between

the plants and Visteon.”

Once again, the issue of local versus global interests surfaced. It is a fundamental
factor in the work of these teams.

Language was one of the issues highlighted when the team members were
asked about diversity. One team member said, “There is a language of choice, and
speaking it is a huge reason why some plants are well known. If everything was
held in Portuguese, it would be different. People would have more to say if the

meeting were held in their languages.” This team felt that there were times when

cultural differences can cause an insensitivity problem. One engineer commented

150

that “We haven’t had any training, and we don’t do anything as a team, i.e., come in

a day early—so we never had any relationship building time.”

There was general agreement that the only rewards for Copy Exactly work
are personal, rather than official. One team member said that, although rewards are
not linked, if you create a “better process, it means more free time to improve the

process further, which can lead to better quality and greater speed.” The team’s
opinions on rewards were summed up well by the team member who said, “There is

no link between team performance and rewards. There are no consequences positive

or negative. It’s all personal initiative.”

Rewards are linked to one of the lessons that a team member recounted:

“I will remember how difficult it really was to get the team to agree
on basic things like equipment. It took hours and hours—six months
to come to consensus. The people didn’t want to change and didn’t

understand what a BKM was. Copy Exactly is additional—the team
building is even more crucial because there are no rewards. People
want to be rewarded in a materialistic fashion. A good team needs to

get bonuses.”

The tone of this lesson is reflected in another told by one of the team members:
“What will stay in my mind is that the people who brought Copy
Exactly had the right intentions. It was brought from Intel, with

similar products, to our plants with diverse products. If it were ever
achieved I think it will be a very significant accomplishment, but the

ability to change BKMs has to be speeded up.”

This team is thoughtful and concerned about the pace of change as they talk about

their work. It coincides with Craig Mulhauser’s concerns discussed earlier in this

case. He said he believed that people had to be more flexible.

One member effectively contrasted the impact of their dispersed team to that

of a collocated team, saying:

151

 

“On a global team participation is not accountable. There is no
accountability. A good leader makes it easier to control a collocated
team. The good things about a virtual team are the ability to interact
and see different cultures and different countries. It needs a much
higher commitment from the organization to get it working versus the
collocated team. However, a well-organized virtual team can have
more impact while the collocated team only affects one location. This

virtual team impacts seven plants very powerfully.

The Core Team
The members of this team are advanced manufacturing managers or

supervisors at each plant who serve to coordinate, support, encourage, and help

guide the other teams. One team member said, “I’m a Core Team member so I set
strategy. As a coach I try to be in synch with the CIT team leader, but the Core
Team is more of a strategy team than an implementation team.” Another member of
the team described his role: “I keep the momentum going. As the coach I should
make sure there are resources (people dedicated by plants) and give guidance if there
is no direction. I am also the source of impasse mediation, although I want the team
to work it out.”

This Core Team face-to-face meeting was held at North Penn during the
week of June 8, 1999. The atmosphere within Visteon was very tense, due to the
effects of yet more internal restructuring, as well as further rumors of some sort of
impending action such as a Visteon sale or spinoff by Ford Motor Company. Plants
were feeling the impact of the loss of engineers to firms with more competitive

wage and benefit packages. The Arbor Plant in Brazil had just experienced layoffs,

which is always unsettling. Add to these issues an article in the May 1999

Automotive Manufacturing and Production, which quotes Visteon president Craig

Muhlhauser as saying, “One challenge is to allow people to see that this is an

152

 

industry that recognizes that it needs to change—and change dramatically from its
current paradigm” (Vasilash 1999).

A senior manager kicked off the meeting with a report on the potential
outcome of some of the restructuring. It was not yet entirely clear who would ‘own’
Copy Exactly, since plants were being divided into different business units and
divisions. The Electronics Division was being folded into Interiors “to allow direct
contact with customers.” The manager emphasized a need to increase flexibility and
responsiveness in meeting customer demands. He used the phrase “to be able to
turn on a dime.” Capacity must be identified and linked to collaboration, to quickly
optimize the production configuration.

Meeting participants affirmed the idea that keeping cohesiveness within the
electronics ‘community’ was important. The changes made by the restructuring
meant that Copy Exactly became one of the few elements that gave electronics
manufacture in Visteon any coherence. The goals of Copy Exactly, “process
commonization and common quality across the plants,” were part of the reason. In

addition, the members of the Copy Exactly teams formed a network of people who

shared a common base of knowledge across the plants.

The Core Team was responsible for “a much larger vision,” as one member
put it. Another team member said the goal of Copy Exactly “is to have methods and

equipment help get the best out of people—best efficiency. It is to define the best

way to do things and apply it across all plants.”

Project metrics were identified as “percent attendance, percent of BKMs

identified, and overall percent matched.” Team members were generally in

agreement that the whole initiative’s performance is judged by people outside the

153

 

team, such as customer/managers in production and management in the SBUs. For
these folks cost savings are the important metric. As one team member said, “The
savings numbers—that’s when upper management gets excited.”

The team is responsible for building and maintaining a consistent plan or
roadmap for conversion and a roadmap for technology. Each of the functional area
teams constructs a roadmap for their area and it is then funneled into the larger
initiative-wide roadmap. The functional area team leaders or plant champions report
to the Core Team at their meetings. The meeting structure is similar to the
functional teams—weekly telephone conferences and periodic face-to-face meetings.
At the face-to-face meetings the reports are shared, and “the plants see their metrics

as compared to others, and the team makes recommendations.”

As might be imagined, this group has definite ideas about what the teams

need to be successful. Among their suggestions are:

- Travel budget

' Measurables

0 Support from the plant

- Money for modernizing equipment

- Time to do Copy Exactly work in the plants

- Time to go to meetings
0 Management support and feedback if they are doing a good job

0 Training in how to do Copy Exactly

The teams need “a person to step out and look and tell them where to concentrate.
We need to divide the resources to concentrate on this, so that people can step out of
the tornado of production and look from the outside. We need to give them some

thinking time, along with clear priorities, rather than mixed objectives.”

The Core Team’s comments on diversity were clear and straightforward. The

comments speak for themselves: “Diversity will improve team performance.”

154

 

“Diversity helps us move outside the box, and diversity breeds success.” “With
enough diversity we tend to see more of the ‘world’ of process effects, and we learn
from each other.” This is a strong message and one that is projected into the work
of the team as well as outward to the functional team members.

When the interviews turned to the effect of team performance on their
rewards, this team answered very much as the others did. Two team members
commented that there was no structural reward system for rewarding their efforts.

One commented, “The team should be recognized for progress, but there is no way

99

to recognize effort. The other said, “It is seen as one portion of your job, so it

does come into the picture. You become known in the company and get global
exposure, so that’s a reward in a sense.” A third team member said, “I’m rewarded
more indirectly during the overall performance review.” A fourth member of the
team was more blunt, “Zero. There is no compensation. Copy Exactly is viewed as
a part-time effort, measured on local rather than global objectives.”

During the face-to-face, one team member emphasized that the team needed
to be more aware of the need to be .more embedded in a business framework, at the
same time that he reinforced Craig Muhlhauser’s key strategic goals.'0 The Core
Team members were aware of the need to engage upper management but they
expressed some frustration at what they see as a short-term approach. As one man

put it, “They’re driven by quality and cost savings—that’s really it. The ‘want

 

'0 A manager delivered a strong message that echoed elements of Craig
Muhlhauser’s plans to position Visteon as a highly competitive supply organization.
Three elements that will lead to Visteon’s success include becoming faster at almost
everything, taking advantage of the expertise available among the workforce, and fully
supporting a vision of a more competitive organization (Vasilash 1999).

155

 

impact today’ syndrome—and if they don’t get it the program ends. It’s short-
sighted to want it cheaper, better, faster.” Another team member said:
“The responsibility of leadership is to support the answers that come

out and agreement on common end points. They must support the

successes and failures, especially support the spectacular failures
because everything is not a success. Leaders must sacrifice short-term

objectives locally to have long-term successes at a distance, but this
company’s culture is to compete against each other.”

The manager also tied Copy Exactly work to the idea of making electronics
production leaner and more cost effective. It is interesting though that the Copy
Exactly Initiative is not more tightly linked to the lean manufacturing goals of the
Ford Production System, which is being implemented across plants in Visteon.

When asked about the apparent lack of a relationship between the two programs, one
team member said, “Copy Exactly is viewed as a separate entity. We don’t see the
interrelationships, like trying to match tools with the Visteon Production System.”

Core Team members identified some significant differences since the
beginning of Copy Exactly. For example, “the range of decision making is smaller.
There are 3 options rather than 32, which makes life easier for decision makers.”

Another team member reports:

“Now, there is a whole new level of respect between the plants than
there was 2-3 years ago. Before, they never had the opportunity for
respect and understanding. There are still issues, but it makes it easier
to do process development. Management can’t measure it, except the

tangibles.”

The fact that Copy Exactly is a team project is important for its success as well.

The cooperation and collaboration that can grow within a team seem to be what one

team member is speaking of when he says:

156

 

“The last thing I want is some one telling me from the outside that my
line will look like this or that but this team approach helps with that
resistance—you consense to change because you agree to most of the
change and you think you can live with it. The structure helps to
make it work because the people who make it work are part of the

team.”

It was fun to ask these team members to share a story or a lesson.
Unfortunately most just chuckled and then told me ‘a better story.’ One team
member said that the lesson for him was that “Visteon will grow—is growing—and
we need to free up engineers to quote new business. We must contain costs and
push growth.” Several Core Team members told stories about events that happened
during the face-to-face meetings, a combination of business and personal—birthday
cakes, long hours hammering out solutions, watching controversial issues melt away

over dinner in the evenings, and making rules such as no meetings in Canada in the

winter.

Conclusion

The people of the Copy Exactly Teams in this study were all great
representatives for their plants and their company. It was difficult not to be
impressed with the efforts they were making to accomplish a huge task in an ever-
changing organizational context. In the earlier part of this case study, some of the
contextual factors in the global competitive environment present in this story were
outlined: restructuring in the global auto supply industry; redirection of internal
organizational structures and product strategies; and rapid, successive changes in

organizational leadership. Each of those factors has had an impact on the Copy

157

 

Exactly Teams. This study has examined those impacts through the words of team

members, coworkers, and members of management.

Industry Changes
As the changes in the auto parts supply industry push Ford to change its

relationship with Visteon, employees are faced with many challenges. The greatest
concern is probably for job and employment security. What will happen to me and
my plant when the company restructures the next time? It is a serious question, and
it has an impact on how people respond in their day-to-day work. We have heard
the team members talk about the competitive feelings between plants, and how they
work within that constraint.

The shift from original equipment maker to parts supplier is a mindset change
that Visteon employees are gradually absorbing. At one face-to-face we had a brief
glimpse of how one team interacted with suppliers. While it may have been an
extreme situation, coupled with other Copy Exactly team observations, it shows that
there is a need to build greater trust if those relationships are to be of mutual benefit.
The suppliers of equipment and materials selected as the BKMs by the teams may

need to eventually be brought into a more integrated team effort to continue to gain

incremental improvements.
There was no solid link between the work of Copy Exactly and Visteon’s
efforts to create a more ‘lean’ operation. The Ford Production System or Visteon
Production System was in evidence throughout the plants, yet these engineers who
were supporting and designing production processes were not involved and had not

been given much information on how the lean manufacturing method would impact

158

 

their work. Both North Penn and Markham had been recognized for achievements
in cutting costs and cycle time, but in both cases the introduction of lean principles

could have been more solidly linked to Copy Exactly. Commonization or

integration of efforts to make improvements might make it possible to show greater

cost savings.

Changes in Organizational Structure

The ongoing changes in organizational structure have changed the network
within which the teams operate. The Electronics Division has been subsumed into
the Interior Systems Group. The plants still exist, but as parts of different strategic
business units. The one integrating structure for electronics is the Copy Exactly
Initiative. Even the manager who first made this assessment has been assigned to a
new job elsewhere in the company.

As this is being written Copy Exactly is at ‘home’ in the Electrical Core
Design group for the North American Cockpit SBU. Copy Exactly Teams will have
changed their ‘home’ divisions, group, system, or business unit any number of times,
just during the course of this study. Each change meant a change in the hierarchy
and politics of their existence. Small wonder that they feel organizational support is
one of their greatest needs.

Copy Exactly was envisioned as an integrating and unifying project that
would, over the long term, cut costs and make circuit board manufacturing more
competitive. Decisions for the system would only be optimized for each plant if
there was no competition between plants for survival. As one manager explained it

before the latest organizational reordering:

159

 

“The results are that the organization is a living thing. We are

learning how to restructure to meet new business requirements. Now
we are close to [organizational] restructure and that’s linked to Copy
Exactly. Distributed processes move to a more centralized form, and

COPY EXEICtly leads to a critical mass.”

The strategic organizational changes seem to have made this goal more difficult.
Plants have reportedly been told that they are again going to be profit centers, which

may well enhance rather than minimize competition. It is to be hoped that it will

produce what one manager called a “manufacturing community, which we can take

to the division level.”
The network of relationships and shared knowledge that the members of the

Copy Exactly teams have built is extraordinary. Engineers in at least seven

countries know where they can call to get specific information and ask for help.

They have first-hand knowledge of the other plants and the equipment they operate.
Information sharing has increased as team members begin to trust each other as well
as the information they provide. Plant tours that were a standard part of each face-
to-face have also helped to build the network. If the commonization process
continues, the amount of knowledge that can be shared will grow, as plants share
solutions and difficult technical information. This network is an as yet
unacknowledged ‘structure’ within Visteon. If it is given support and nurtured, the
company and each plant will reap benefits that will never be strictly measurable, but
they will be of inestimable value.

This professional network might be strong enough to create a sense of

belonging to the company, rather than to one’s home location. However, with all
the changes and uncertainties, there is a good likelihood that people will feel much

more attachment to their home locations than to the company. As the company

160

 

 

itself may metamorphose into something else, with a merger or buyout. internal

loyalties may well reside most strongly at the home location level.

Changes in Leadership
Leadership for the Copy Exactly teams had many faces: team leaders,

coaches or champions, local management, and corporate management. When
problems arose within the teams, team leaders called on coaches from the Core
Team to help. The lines of authority for Copy Exactly matters ran directly up this
path to Dearbom, where the supervisor or manager might get involved. Local

management did not get involved in Copy Exactly concerns to any great extent. The

manager worked as the liaison to executive levels of the company, through the Copy

Exactly hierarchy and through his own personal leadership structure.

Team leaders were critical to the success of the teams. They facilitated the
meetings, distributed minutes and agendas, and generally kept the team on track.
This work was extra, above and beyond their work at their home locations. They

were able to combine technical expertise with interpersonal skills.

The most troublesome leadership issue for Copy Exactly endeavors is the

lack of clear upper-level endorsement and promotion—missing for the most part

after Charlie Szuluk retired. Szuluk’s interest and knowledge of electronics made a

natural link to a project like Copy Exactly. His successors came into the top

position with other interests and priorities framed in different ways. This led to

mixed signals and allowed a sense of flagging support to filter downward.

Local leadership responds to the signals that support their manufacturing
This translated into a lessened emphasis on Copy Exactly in some plants

charge.
161

 

Attending meetings became increasingly difficult as travel budgets were redirected.
Time needed to do the work of the teams conflicted with the time needed to do plant
related daily work. It is a dilemma that has been framed as a mismatch between
local versus global interests. It may well be the single most powerful force running
counter to the efforts of the Copy Exactly teams. Each team singled it out as an

area of concern. Competitive pressures and short-term cost cutting are causing, as

one team member said, a “want impact now” attitude among managers accountable

for plant productivity. Therein may lie the secret to the continued success of Copy

Exactly—it must be more completely integrated into both the corporate structure and

the values that support that structure.

162

 

RESOURCES CITED

Anonymous (1998a). “Visteon Ventures into Theater Seats.” Automotive Engineering
106: 88.

Anonymous (l998b). “Ford Unit to Build Philipine Plant.” American Metal Market
106: 4.

Anonymous ( 1998c). “Ford Unit Opens Portugal Plant.” The Wall Street Journal:
pC27 (W) col 3 (2col in).

Anonymous (l998d). “GM’s Delphi Division Sets Agreement to Sell Seating Line to
Lear.” Wall Street Journal: B8.

Anonymous (I998e). “Unexpected Retirement for Visteon’s Szuluk.” Ward ’s Auto
World 34: 20.

Botkin, J. (1999). Smart Business: How Knowledge Communities Can Revolutionize
Your Company. New York, The Free Press.

Buchholz, K. (1998). “Visteon Acquires Two Polish Firms.” Automotive Engineering
106 (8): 62.

Eisenstein, P. (1999). “Components of Success Come Together.” Professional
Engineering 12 (4): 23—24.

Fleischer, M. (1998). The New Suppliers—and their Suppliers. Automotive
Manufacturing & Production 110: 30—31.

Galuszka, P., K. Kerwin, et al. (1999). Big Dents in Auto Parts. Business Week
(Industrial/technology edition): 120—122.

Gazdik, T. (1997). “Y&R Gets Visionary for Ford Parts Unit.” Adweek 38: 5.

McCormack, J. (1998). Visteon’s Lead Plant for Cost Reduction. Automotive
Industries 178: 109.

McCracken, J. (1999). Lear Drives Visteon Deal: Seat Firm Likely to be Acquirer in
Any Deal. Crain’s Detroit Business. Detroit, MI: 1.

Ott, K. and D. Sedgewick (1998). Supply Line: Cooper Automotive and Visteon

Automotive Systems formed windshield wiper system partnership. Automotive
News 71: 17.

163

 

 

Sedgwick, D. (1998). New President Helped Visteon Stand Alone. Automotive News
(19 Oct): 3.

Sorge, M., N. Martin, et al. (1997). “What Visteon Wants to Be.” Automotive
Industries 177: 184—186.

Vasilash, G. S. (1997). “See the Possibilities.” Automotive Manufacturing and
Production 109: 86—88.

Vasilash, G. S. (1999). “Visteon: Speed Experience, Vision.” Automotive
Manufacturing and Production 111: 66-67.

Versical, D. (1997). “New Ford Parts Unit Has Lofty Goals.” Automotive News (15.
Sept): 8.

White, J. B. (1999). “Ford Expected to Unveil Spinoff Plans for Visteon, Naming of
Pestillo as Head.” Wall Street Journal (12. Nov.): A, 4: 3.

Winter, D. (1997). “Ford APO Transforms to Visteon.” Ward ’5 Auto World 33:
80—81.

Young, L. H. (1998). “Visteon: a New Kind of Auto Supplier.” Electronic News 44
(2208): 1—2.

164

 

CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS

This chapter contains the quantitative results of this study. The results will
be discussed in two parts. The first section will contain the results of the shorter
surveys that were administered to those participants who were interviewed. The
second section is a report on the results of the longer, web-based survey

administered to the entire participant list of the project—non-team members who

were interviewed and participants who support the team or do related work. Where
appropriate, the qualitative data will be used to support quantitative results, thus
validating the results of both data collection modes. Unfortunately, insufficient
archival data was received from the company to complete the planned comparison of
study findings with corporate measures.

Recall that at the end of each interview (11 = 30), the participants were
requested to complete three forms: a demographic information sheet and two short
survey instruments (see Appendices D and A, respectively) related to their

perceptions of resources available to the Copy Exactly teams and the frequency with

which they used specific modes of communication.

165

 

Results
The responses to the resources survey were tabulated for six groups organized

by role, the five function-specific teams, a group of managers, and a group of

coworkers who worked on other Copy Exactly teams that were not included in the
study. The mean scores and standard deviations for each resource are reported by
group and location in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. Low scores indicate the perception of a

deficiency in the amount of the resource available to the group.

In Table 5.1, the totals for six groups are displayed. Every group except
managers selected “support from other parts of the organization” as their most
needed resource (managers selected it as the second most needed resource after “non
face-to-face time”). The next most needed resources are:

time for non face-to-face meetings.

- people,
training in how to be an effective team,

information needed to complete task.

Interestingly, “skills in the group to complete the task” was most frequently listed as
the resource least in need at this time along with “tools for non face-to-face

interaction,” and “materials to do the task.”

Since twenty-nine of the thirty people interviewed were engineers by training,
it is not surprising that skill levels were viewed as satisfactory. In addition, this
result fits with the quantitative data in which team members reported that team
selection was based on skills and expertise. The teams whose members work
primarily in the plants had higher ratings for skill resource needs than the managers

and headquarters group. These latter two groups reported a perceived need for

higher skill levels.

166

 

The teams reported that they also needed time for non face-to-face meetings
but did not perceive a need for tools for non face-to-face meetings. Team members
seem to need more time to communicate on the phone or via email, but feel that
those tools are currently adequate. This may also reflect a stated need for more time
to do the work of the team. In general those groups that were more involved in
administrative work, managers, the headquarters group, and the core team reported a
need for greater amounts of non-face-to-face time.

Team 2 consistently reported higher perceived satisfaction with levels of
resources than the other teams. None of the data collected on this team provides an
explanation of why this is the case. An ANOVA comparing the team means shows
differences between the team mean scores, but none of them are significant.

In Table 5.2, the scores are distributed by site visited; and once again, low
scores indicate a perceived need for greater amounts of the resource. In every case,
the greatest perceived resource need is support from other parts of the organization.
Thus, the lack of support is felt across teams and locations. It is not just a symptom

of one group or facility. Throughout the project as well as within the ranks of

managers, there is a real sense of the lack of organizational support for the initiative.

This result matches the observed reality described in Chapter 4.

The site scores also indicate perceived needs for more people, training, and

time. In the least-needed category for the sites were skills, tools, facilitation, and
materials. This list mirrors the perceived least-needed resources identified by the

groups. Site 1 indicates less resource deficiency than the other sites in every
category except materials, while Site 3 reports the greatest perceived need for more

resources in six out of ten categories. Site 1 is not in the United States. The mean

167

scores for this site are above the average mean score in every category. This result
might be related to cultural norms but such a conclusion is difficult to support since
Site 3 is also not in the US. This is clearly an area where additional, more focused
research is needed.

An ANOVA comparing the mean scores across sites shows differences
significant at the .05 level in only two categories: information and skills. In the case
of information, Site 3 prides itself on having accurate levels of information, as well
as documenting it carefully. The people working at this site might be overly
concerned about information levels. The differences in perceptions of skills needed
may result from the fact that Site 1 (lowest mean score) must respond to the
problems of the other sites, and this may alter their perceptions of the skills of the
members of the project.

There is remarkable agreement between the perceived resource needs of the
teams and the sites. The participants have collectively marked several needs that
they feel would improve their performance. In the case study in Chapter 4, the issue
of strategic alignment between the strategic goals of the organization and the Copy
Exactly teams was identified as a key barrier to the success of the initiative at the
organizational level.

Both qualitative and quantitative results support the serious need for
organizational alignment and support as critical for the effectiveness of dispersed
teams. Within the team and within the initiative, performance was generally high;
and team members accomplished many things. The key to commonization was local
change, as the plants implemented the globally driven Copy Exactly
recommendations. Locally, the Copy Exactly changes were frequently seen as costly

168

 

and potentially detrimental to a plant’s competitiveness within the organization.
Without clear and sustained organizational support, local concerns can hamper the
change process.

A second issue with alignment has to do with the potential clash between
production needs and engineering processes. Changing machines means
readjustments to the manufacturing process, which would generally cause delays in
production. There is a clash between the measures by which these two corporate
areas are evaluated. Further issues of organizational support will be discussed in the

following sections.

169

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
5.: E: :3 £3 E: 33 5.: an u 2:
SN NZ 2.... 2a man can EN :2 a1” a: :32 .55
an: an: an: 33 an: 83 8c: 5.: an: an: a u 2: :82
mom a; 5m 5m a: 8.4 2: 8m SN 2.... 5:335
an: 2.: As: :5 8...: 83 83 5.: cm: :3 G u 2:
ME :.~ on as ”3. SN 9% :4” SN gm :32 $9322
83 3a.: 2...: S: :8: 83 so: an: 83 an: e. u 2:
m2 «3 8a Sm com 9.2 com 8a SN 3.“ Ea: m 58..
83 so: an: 83 83 83 83 83 an: 83 c. u 2:
3.. 8a. o3 m: m: n: com n2 :2 m3 :8: v as;
$3 5.: so: an: 5.: $3 33 so: 33 5.: a u 2:
3: SN 8.4 :2 8a A?” $4 8a m? SN :82 n 58h
a»: an: 33 Gm: an: an: 5.: $3 an: 83 a. u 2:
8a con m5. 2.». m: con man m3 3m 2.... =32 N as;
$3 an: 83 :5 83 as: an: :5 an: 5: G u 2:
8.. 8a 8A 8a 8a own SA 8A 9% gm :8: _ as... __
teaaam 25,—. 18,—. eezazzuam 2:: mar.— m=§m 038n— m_a_..3a_>_ MEEEP =e:aE.8.—=— 9.20 =
.3... .oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

98.5 E maeenmomlmaao—z own—34.. $3.5m 83.58% "fin «33.

170

.lm!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8...: .3: 2...: .E: .3: .8: .3: E: .8: 5: .3 u 2:
SN NE o...” o... .3 :2 a... .3 $.N own .53
.8: .8: .3: 2...: .3: .mm: .3: .3: .8: .3: G u 2:
3.. SN SN 8.. a...” .3 as com SN :3 .. ea
.. 2. .3: an: 3.: .5: .8: .8: .8: 65 .2: .b u 2:
.5 SN 8.... :3 EN v... in .2 as as n 25
.3: .3: .3: .3: so: .2: .R: .E: .E: .3: .a u 2:
m; 85 8.... 3m 8... .3 .3 mam SN SM u 25
6...: .2: .2: .3: .9: .8: .2: .8: .2: .E: ... u 2:
Ga 2... 8A 3m .3 m: a: 2.... m; R... . an
tonasm 25... £8... 5.33:2...— 25. :2 £35 «Eco.— m_a_.8a_>_ ”SEEP 5.3.58..— oEaz 85
.3... .oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L

 

 

 

 

 

.5583 .3 8m=eq8mlm=e_.a_>un FEE—Sm was 2.82 omega. ".325 88.88% “mm «35,—.

171

 

Communication

The results for the communication survey are less dramatic than those for the
resources survey. Since the survey was designed before the field work began and
was based on the literature describing the work of dispersed teams, the survey
included videoconferences as one of the communication choices. The Copy Exactly
teams did not use videoconferencing for their work and that category was not a
useful part of the survey. As of September 1999, the team has begun to explore
videoconferencing as a less expensive alternative to the travel needed for face-to-
face meetings.

The patterns of responses to this survey show that generally there are two
face-to-face meetings each year, weekly or biweekly telephone conferences, some
written communication, and infrequent to rare conferences using internet software.
Informal telephone calls and email are the two most frequent modes of
communication for all groups and at every site. The estimated use of email was
slightly higher than the use of telephone calls. This makes sense given the
dispersion of these teams globally and the differences in time zones at these sites.

These results support the role of mediated communication in the performance
effectiveness of these dispersed teams. Email would be a comfortable alternative,
since it allows people to compose their remarks and reply at their own speed.
Certainly, every global team will have different patterns of communication mode
usage, based on the availability and ease of use of certain modes, as well as the

characteristics of the communication network within which they are used. Mediated

communication is among the variables discussed in the next section of this paper.

 

Hypotheses

Table 5.3 provides means, standard deviations, sample size, Cronbach’s
alphas, and correlations for all variables. A multiple regression analysis was used to
test the relationship between the independent variables in the model (LEADRSHP,
ORGSUPPT, GOALCLAR, REWARDS, ACCOUNT, DIVERST, KNOWSKIL, and
MEDIACOM) and performance effectiveness (EFFECTIV), the dependent variable.
The analysis highlights the significant positive relationships between effectiveness

(EFFECTIV), diversity (DIVERST) and knowledge and skills (KNOWSKIL).

173

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$2. :2... 8.. .33. :3... mm... :9... 1.3.. ..m .m... we... .5535. a
8.. :9... :8... .2.- ..S.. :8... :3... ..w: R a... an... .5235...
mm..- ..mm. 8..- 3... .2... :NR. .2: mm a... an... 2858.)...-
SN. .3..- :E.. o. .. 8.. .2: 2 we... ..a... Eaamomo .:
__ to- 2.8.. :8... :80 .3: mm a... 2:: mic-Zoo .m
o. 7 3m. :....m.- .9... ..m SN 2.... mafia-n... ..
am. as. .3: 2. :2 4.... F2308... .-
:..a.. ..c: ..m a... 8.: San-.2... .N
.3... mm 2.... 3.8 >....om.....m ..
f a h e m .. ..- N . a z .3 2.8.2 8.8.5»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo_.___._a__o~_ E... sects—9.30 £33.35 33.—$889 .m.m 033—.

II

174

Organizational support (ORGSUPPT), the variable that stood out sharply in
the analysis of the short resources survey, is related positively to accountability
(ACCOUNT) and leadership (LEADRSHP). This is reasonable given the natural
relationships of these factors in the employment environment. Not surprisingly,
ORGSUPPT has small, non-significant relationships with the other variables,
including effectiveness. Copy Exactly participants view the perceived lack of
organizational support from other parts of the organization as an element of the
organizational context that they work around to perform effectively. Effectiveness
has a positive and significant relationship to all the variables except organizational
support. The qualitative data discussed in Chapter Four support these results.

Table 5.4 reports the regression results for two models. Model 1 is
composed of variables that are more traditionally representative of the key elements
of team performance (Hackman 1987). These five variables (LEADRSHP,
ORGSUPPT, GOALCLAR, REWARDS, ACCOUNT) produced mixed results. The
overall model explains 42% of the variance and has a highly significant F score.
REWARDS is significant to .05 but is negative, while GOALCLAR and
LEADRSHP are positive and statistically significant. These regression results mirror
both the correlations of these variables with effectiveness, as well as the perceptions
of the participants in the qualitative interviews.

Model 2 reflects the addition of three variables predicted to be more
important for the performance of dispersed teams than for collocated teams
(DIVERST, KNOWSKIL, and MEDIACOM). Diversity in dispersed teams must be
defined more carefully than it might be for collocated teams. Differences in race,
sex, or national origin are an inherent component of globally dispersed teams.

175

However, these factors become far less visible when team members communicate

via electronic media.

Table 5.4: Regression Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Model 1 Model 2
b b
LEADERSHP .44* .12
ORGSUPPT -.18 .05
GOALCLAR .68* .20
REWARDS -.57* -.19
ACCOUNT .06 .22
DIVERST ---- .61 * *
KNOWSKIL ---- .17
MEDIACOM ---- .17
R Squared .422 .673
F (5,34) 4.967M F (8,30) 7.72***

* p < .05

** p < .01

*** p < .001

Other elements may become more important, such as shared professional
competence and variety of experience that may be applied to problem solving
(diverse work settings, familiarity with different languages, or assignment to multiple
projects). DIVERSTY is tied closely to knowledge and skills, although
KNOWSKIL is more strictly defined as education, training, and work skills.
Mediated communication (MEDIACOM) becomes an essential element for optimal

use of the former two variables. If there are no appropriate means for

176

communicating, the dispersed team is severely handicapped. Therefore, there is a
dynamic relationship between these variables that has special meaning for the
globally dispersed team.

Before continuing this analysis, it must be noted that the sample size is
smaller (30—34) than the total sample for the survey (N = 55). This occurred due to
the construction of the survey and subsequent scale construction. Initially the
research design included a comparison of results for team members with those of
other groups, such as managers or project support staff. This comparison was not
possible because participants misunderstood the survey directions. As a result some
questions have somewhat fewer answers than others. This causes missing data that
leads to smaller sample size despite efforts to maximize sample size, including the
use of a pairwise deletion method.

When Model 2 is run with the addition of these three factors (DIVERST,
KNOWSKIL, and MEDIACOM), it allows us to account for far more of the
variance. The dramatic difference in the R squared (.673) for Model 2 over Model 1
(.422), plus the highly significant F score, prompted additional analysis.

Further regression analyses were run, using the stepwise method of variable
entry and the backward elimination method of variable entry. Table 5.5 reports the
results of the backward elimination method. In this method of regression, variables
are all entered into the equation and then at each step the variable that causes the
smallest change in R squared is eliminated. Three variables are left in the sixth
model (DIVERST, KNOWSKIL, and MEDIACOM). These three variables explain

over 65% of the variance in this model.

177

2...: .2... -..

 

$3. .43.. n.

8...: and a

3.... and: --.

a 8.. .m ..o S. v a .2. was .. b 3.680.. o_nm_..m>

8.... ..m... ,..

 

IE: 83.. n.

82.; n. __

 

ave.

$0.

$0.

woo.

who.

who.

33:—om m __

 

X

X

X

$.00.va4 .w

 

45530va .N.

 

 

Emmy/.9 .

 

 

#750004... .

 

 

M<AUA<OO .

 

o
m
m§<3m~u .v
m
m

HmmDmOMO .

 

mImMQ<mA .—

 

39.: ac

 

.25: em

 

.25: av

 

 

 

 

3.52 in

 

.35.). EN

 

 

Eve—Z :—

 

833...;

 

£5683— o_aa_._a> .3 £52 megs—one 5:89.91 .3 3.33— mmm>_a:< 2.: 3....— “m.m 935-

178

The regression analysis using the stepwise entry method also leads to the
same conclusion. Table 5.6 reports the R squared for each model, as well as the F
scores and significance. Notice that once again these three variables explain a larger
percentage of the variance (R squared =.626). Mediated communication is the least
predictive of the three variables, although it is moderately but significantly correlated

to effectiveness.

Table 5.6: Regression Results: Stepwise Entry Method

 

 

 

Model R Squared
1 .375
2 .626

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These results help us to answer the research questions driving this study.
Globally dispersed team effectiveness in this study is influenced by factors similar to
those of collocated teams. However, performance is more heavily influenced by
factors such as diversity, knowledge/skills, and mediated communication. Diversity
in race, gender and national origin is inherent in global teams and is less important
when team members are not face-to-face. However, broader diversity of
experiences, problem solving modes, and professional attitudes takes on great
relevance for globally dispersed teams.

These team members are selected because their local manager believes they
possess a high level of knowledge and skills that pertain specifically to the tasks

they perform. Professional educational curricula form an element of this shared base

179

of knowledge, as does on-the job training. Team members come to rely on this
level of knowledge and skill even more when they are not collocated, communicate
primarily electronically with others on the team, and must be self-directed. One
result of these conditions is that competence assumes greater importance as a
foundation for trust building in the team.

Mediated communication plays a crucial role in the interactions of the team.
In this study, the team did not yet use videoconferences but relied on email,
telephone, a website, and face-to-face meetings. According to the qualitative data,
this team used electronic communication as an expedient tool but really believed that
the most important work was done face-to-face. The process they described was one
in which the work done electronically built up to face-to-face decisions.

In summary, the regression analyses distinguished the value of three
variables—diversity, mediated communication, and knowledge/skill—from the other
five variables—leadership, organizational support, goal clarity, rewards, and
accountability. The former were either not in Hackman’s model (mediated
communication) or take on enhanced meaning when viewed through the spatial and
chronological differences of globally dispersed teams (diversity and
knowledge/skill).

The results of the analysis generally supported the hypotheses. In line with
Wageman’s work (1995, 1997) on rewards alignment, there is a negative relationship
and highly significant correlation between rewards and effectiveness expressed in the
figures in Table 5.3. This supports the hypothesized effect of individually awarded
compensation on collective work expressed in Hypothesis 1. Compensation and
performance evaluation occurs for team members in their home locations and is

180

based on the work they do for their supervisors in these workplaces. It follows that
these conditions could negatively impact performance effectiveness for the global
team, as individual team members optimize their own rewards through greater
emphasis on locally rewarded tasks. Additionally, this result reflects the situation
described in the qualitative data by participants who reported that there were no
links between rewards and performance.

As hypothesized, diversity has a strong impact on the performance
effectiveness of dispersed teams. Hypothesis 2 is strongly supported by the results
of the regression analyses, which all highlight the relationship between diversity and
effectiveness. In this study the definition of diversity was expanded beyond the
outwardly visible characteristics of race, gender, and national origin, to include the
more intangible aspects of difference such as competence, functional background,
and attitudes (Jackson 1991; Jackson, May, and Whitney 1995; Harrison, Price, and
Bell 1998; Pelled, Eisenhardt, and Xin 199). The visible factors are inherent in the
composition of the global teams that make up the Copy Exactly Initiative, while the
intangible factors acquire emphasis due to the unique dispersed nature of the teams’
work organization.

Notice that diversity is both highly and significantly correlated with
effectiveness. Additionally, regression analyses indicate that this variable is one of
the strongest predictors of performance effectiveness in the overall model. These
results are supported by team member comments on the value of the variety of
experiences available in each group.

As predicted, accountability has a small, positive, significant relationship to
effectiveness. This provides some support for Hypothesis 3. Of interest here is the

181

relationship between accountability (ACCOUNT) and goal clarity (GOALCLAR).
The qualitative data clearly illustrate the clarity of purpose that team members share
and the accountability that many of them feel to others on the team. Accountability
relationships affect how people approach their tasks and set goals in the workplace
(Frink and Ferris 1998).

Participants describe the lack of clear accountability to a global supervisor, as
each team member operated under local management. On the other hand, they do
see the team leaders and members as people whose feedback is important.
Additionally, many team members identified a strong sense of responsibility and
accountability to their immediate supervisor.

Contrary to Hypothesis 4, mediated communication has a positive, significant
relationship to team performance effectiveness. Despite concerns about the impact
of technology on team performance, and the link between trust and team
performance (Hollingshead and McGrath 1995), and the link between trust and team
performance (Warkentin et al. 1997; Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1998; Jarvenpaa, Knoll,
and Leidner 1998), regression results in Table 5.4 in Model 2 show that mediated
communication (MEDIACOM) is important to the effectiveness of the dispersed
teams in this study.

The use of modes of mediated communication is a crucial part of the work of
dispersed teams. Team members report that it is sometimes difficult to accomplish
all they would like during telephone conferences, because people are reluctant to
speak up, have difficulty understanding, and the technology is not always as
effective as possible. Nonetheless, telephone conferences and email are one of the
main modes of communication for these teams; and there are few other options that

182

are as cost effective and available. So the results and the literature together suggest
that because mediated communication is essential to team performance effectiveness,
the teams work with it even when it is not the optimal communication mode.

Different modes of communication seem to be used for different types of
work. Phone conferences are used to plan and put details in place so that decisions
can be made during the face-to-face meetings. It is also during the face-to-face
meetings that team members build the strongest relationships among themselves
(Warkentin et a1. 1997).

The strong, positive, and significantly correlated relationship that goal clarity
(GOALCLAR) has with performance effectiveness supports Hypothesis 5. Just as
goal clarity is an important element of Hackman’s model, it is an important element
in Model 1. In fact, it is the largest single element among the variables in that
model. This changes in Model 2, where it is not nearly as strong an element.

Goal clarity among members of the dispersed teams in this study was
somewhat varied. Even this general level of clarity was not shared with those
outside the teams, such as local supervisors or people from other functional areas.
Thus, the range of ambiguity was quite large for these teams and establishing an
“acceptable performance level” was difficult . In other words, the dispersed nature
of the team and the local nature of accountability may create conflict between the .
importance of goal clarity inside the team and goal clarity inside the local facilities
where each team member works.

The results of the analyses support Hypothesis 6 as predicted.
Knowledge/skills (KNOWSKIL) has a strong, positive, highly correlated relationship
to effectiveness. In the regression results, it is one of the three variables added in

183

Model 2 (see Table 5.4) and it explains a large percentage of the variance in
effectiveness. During the interviews the participants commented on the beneficial
effect that knowledge had on team tasks—especially jobs that required problem
solving and testing. The knowledge shared in these teams spread across people who
worked in a number of sites. This moves beyond the collaboration that Hackman
describes in a collocated team to a collective collaboration at a global level.

Beyond effectiveness (EFFECTIV), knowledge and skills (KNOWSKIL) was
the only variable to have a positive and significant relationship with rewards
(REWARDS). Evidently team members believe that their skills are recognized due
to the local nature of the reward structure.

In addition, it is of interest to notice the significant relationship between
mediated communication and knowledge/skills. In order for dispersed teams to
share knowledge and skills, they must primarily use mediated modes of
communication. This is an important point, which highlights the critical nature of '
appropriate communication, as well as a real need to ensure that team members use
it optimally.

Consistent with Hypothesis 7, leadership has a positive, significant
relationship to performance effectiveness. This supports the contention of
Katzenbach and Smith (1992), Little and Madigan (1997), and Wageman (1997) that
leadership is important to the performance of a team. Wageman (1997) believes that
the importance and role of the leader changes over the life of the team and with the
strategic alignment of the team within the organization. In Chapter Four, the
constant churning of people in the top leadership roles in the company results in the
Copy Exactly Initiative losing its budget and organizational ‘home.’

184

In the regression analysis of Model 1, leadership plays a much larger role
without the influence of the three alternative variables. When they are added into
Model 2, leadership assumes a much smaller role. This reflects the more self-
directed nature of the work of global team members whose day-to-day team work is
largely unsupervised but whose global team experience is often shaped by the
activities of the team leaders and staff support people from headquarters.

When the team members talk about leadership, they distinguish between team
leadership and corporate leadership. The team level leadership they believe in and
support, while they are quite cynical about what they perceive as a very short term
attitude among upper management. This ambivalence may have affected the
relationships described in the results.

The inconsistent nature of organizational support for the Copy Exactly
Initiative is reflected in the insignificant relationship between organizational support
(ORGSUPPT) and effectiveness (EFFECTIV). In the regression analyses, the
negative relationship is reflected in Model 1, while there is a small shift to a limited
positive relationship in Model 2. In this study there is no doubt that the participants
felt a serious lack of organizational support. They reported their perceptions in the
short resources survey completed during the interviews and discussed above.
Additionally they describe their frustrations with flagging support in the quantitative
data.

Guzzo and Noonen (1994) report that the importance higher level
management attributes to an initiative is communicated in many ways, and the

message is heard at every level of the organization. Shortly after the end of data

185

collection in this study, the Copy Exactly Initiative was without funding or an

organizational champion. This reflects the message displayed in these data.

Summary

From the beginning this study was planned to add to the body of knowledge
concerning globally dispersed teams. It was built on the fundamental elements of
Hackman’s 1987 model of collocated teams. The variables in this study derived
from the Hackman model and the literature on dispersed teams. This combination of
theories has allowed this study to look at dispersed teams from a broad base. It is
hoped that the results reported here will lead to further research efforts. For
example, globally dispersed teams must balance their activities between two sets of
demands, local and global. This leads to complex rewards and recognition issues for
globally defined team work. In addition, team members who are rewarded locally
for individual efforts may face some dilemmas if their work for the globally situated
team takes away from meeting their local performance expectations.

As the results show, diversity does not negatively affect performance
effectiveness in this study. In fact, diversity is a strong positive influence on
effectiveness. Globally dispersed teams may find that their inherent diversity is a
strategic problem-solving advantage. Teams will have to exercise that advantage
primarily through electronic communication media such as email and telephone.
Geographic dispersion results in the need for new methods of sharing information
that rely on graphics and text as frequently as voice. This will moderate the effects

of language differences and social custom. Mediated communication may force

186

teams to rely more on competence to build trust in relationships rather than the more
visible characteristics that often shape relationships in collocated teams.

Model I and Model 2 are early indicators that there are, of course,
similarities between the needs of collocated and dispersed teams. Teams still need
goal clarity, leadership, and resources, but the dispersed teams need to be aware of
the need for different ways to build team spirit and perform team activities. In the

next chapter the implications of these results will be discussed in greater detail.

I87

RESOURCES CITED

Frink, D. D. and G. R. Ferris (1998). “Accountability, Impression Management, and
Goal Setting in the Performance Evaluation Process.” Human Relations 51 (10):

1259—1283.

Guzzo, R. A. and K. A. Noonan (1994). “Human Resources Practices as

Communications and the Psychological Contract.” Human Resource Management
33 (3): 447—463.

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The Design of Work Teams. Handbook of Organizational
Behavior. J. W. Lorsch. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall: 315—342.

Harrison, D. A., K. H. Price, and M. P. Bell (1998). “Beyond Relational
Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on
Work Group Cohesion.” Academy of Management Journal 41 (1): 96—107.

Hollingshead, A. B. and J. E. McGrath (1995). Computer-Assisted Groups: A
Critical Review of the Empirical Research. Team Eflectiveness and Decision

Making in Organizations. R. A. Guzzo and E. Salas. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass
Publishers: 46—78.

Jackson, S., E., K. E. May, and K. Whitney (1995). Understanding the Dynamics of
Diversity in Decision-Making Teams. Team Effectiveness and Decision Making
in Organizations. R. A. Guzzo and E. Salas. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass:
204—261.

Jackson, S. E. (1991). Team Composition in Organizational Settings: Issues in
Managing an Increasingly Diverse Workforce. Group Process and Productivity.
S. Worchel, W. Wood and S. Simpson. Newbury, CA, Sage: 138—171.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., K. Knoll, and D. E. Leidner (1998). “Is Anybody Out There?
Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams.” Journal of Management
Information Systems 14 (4): 29—64.

Jarvenpaa, S. L. and D. E. Leidner (1998). “Communication and Trust in Global
Virtual Teams.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication:
http://www. ascusc. org/jcmc/vol3/issue 4/jarvenpaa. html

Katzenbach, J. R. and D. K. Smith (1992). “Why Teams Matter.” The McKinsey
Quarterly Summer (3): 3—28.

188

Little, B. L. and R. M. Madigan (1997). “The Relationship between Collective
Efficacy and Performance in Manufacturing Work Teams.” Small Group
Research 28 (4): 517—534.

Pelled, L. H., K. M. Eisenhardt, and K. R. Lin (1999). “Exploring the Black Box: an
Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict, and Performance.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 44 (1): 1—27.

Wageman, R. (1995). “Interdependence and Group Effectiveness.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 40 (1): 145—81.

Wageman, R. (1997). “Critical Success Factors for Creating Superb Self Managing
Teams.” Organizational Dynamics 25 (1): 49—63.

Warkentin, M. E., L. Sayeed, et al. (1997). “Virtual Teams versus Face-to-face

Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-Based Conference System.” Decision
Sciences 28 (4): 975—996.

189

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

At the heart of this study are two research inquiries about the effectiveness of
globally dispersed teams. These teams are a new way of organizing work.

Dispersed teams bring the people of a transnational firm together to form vital new
linkages that may bring inestimable value to the organization. Nonetheless, it is
wise to keep in mind that, even at their most effective, these teams are not a panacea
for all the problems that businesses face as they rush into globalization.

Through a combination of quantitative and qualitative data, this study
explores one set of possible answers to the questions about team performance
effectiveness. It serves as a beginning point for future research that will push
outward the boundaries of the current investigation. The information is presented to
serve as a guidepost for further, more detailed research into dispersed teams.

In this study the dispersed teams needed all the things that Hackman and
others predict are necessary for effective collocated teams. For example, dispersed
teams need a full range of resources similar to those needed by collocated teams.
They also need unique resources, such as a fully realized system of mediated
communication and face-to-face time to resolve certain tasks more expeditiously.

Resources are only one aspect of the environment surrounding these dispersed

teams for they are ad hoc groups created by and operating in existing organizational

190

structures. This chapter will discuss a number of the potential dilemmas facing team
members, dispersed teams, and the organizations that house them. as well as some of
the implications of this new work organization system.

First, a return to the beginning of this study—Hackman’s (1987) model of
team effectiveness. It appears that Hackman was right, and his model of collocated
team effectiveness explains the phenomenon well. It is hard to imagine how
Hackman’s model could be improved upon, and in this study of dispersed teams
elements that he applies to collocated teams are translated into elements that apply to
dispersed teams. Of course. the scope of this study did not allow for an
investigation of every element of Hackman’s model; and the omitted factors may
well be the critical factors.

Nonetheless, dispersed teams are different from collocated teams by virtue of
their geographic and temporal separations. These two characteristics serve to
amplify and transform other team characteristics such as accountability, leadership,
diversity, rewards, and organizational support. Diversity is a good example of this
interaction. In a collocated team diversity is counted in much more visual terms, so
traditional traits such as race. gender, and national origin may have very different
effects than in a dispersed team. Aspects of diversity such as professional cultures.
ethnic cultural norms around autonomy, and organizational status will have an
amplified impact on dispersed team performance.

Proximity to leadership, organizational structure, and corporate strategy are
but a few of the factors that can have great impact on the performance of a
dispersed team. In this study, members of the global teams reported that high levels
of diversity helped the teams to make better decisions. It is clear from the

191

interviews that this diversity had to do with a greater number of viewpoints and
options for problem solving, rather than with race or gender.

The structure of the teams made each team member more autonomous as he
or she returned to a home location. Project leadership was quite distant, while local
supervision often had other agendas, as well as the authority to reward and promote
the individual. Klein and Barrett (2000) describe how these relationships can create
a series of dilemmas for global team members about where to focus their
accountability, how to balance their local work world and their global work world,
and how to judge the importance of their project in the overall corporate
environment. The complexity that these team members face will need to be
captured in models of team performance effectiveness that arise out of this or future

research.

The Local versus Global Dilemma

One of the critical dilemmas for the team members in this study is the
tension they feel between the expectations of supervisors and responsibilities for
duties at their home location and the expectations and responsibilities for duties in
the global team. This dilemma is heightened by employment relations/human
resources policies or even legal/legislative positions that mandate local oversight of
compensation, performance evaluation, and other aspects of the employment
relationship. In other words. global team members have no global accountability for
team performance. Evaluation, promotion, and compensation are all aspects of the

relationship that team members have with their supervisors in their home locations.

192

A second aspect of this dilemma is the impact of global team work on the
interests of the home locations (Klein and Barrett 2000). If collaboration among
team members helps another plant or the corporation become more productive or
profitable, how will that affect the home location? One team member clearly
expresses this when he says, “The process is for the good of the company, not for
the good of [my plant].”

A third aspect of this dilemma is the discrepancy between the level of
information that team members possess and the information levels of their
supervisors or immediate managers at the home location. Team members have
detailed information and competitive details about the other plants’ capabilities. The
potential exists for real tensions between subordinates and managers over
manufacturing and design decisions based on this gap in simultaneous meaning.

The final aspect of the local versus global dilemma in this study is the locus
of resource and budgetary control. The travel budgets for the Copy Exactly Teams
were controlled by their home locations. Supervisors can and have directed the use
of time and money toward local priorities. The results of such resource allocation is
that team goals are not met as rapidly as they could be, and team members lose the
benefits of attendance and participation in team processes.

Local and global tensions between units of the corporation reduce team
performance effectiveness, diminish motivation to press forward with the global
tasks, and decrease levels of collaborative products such as shared knowledge or
unique solutions for shared problems. They are unexpected consequences of new
work systems. Conflicts that arise may be blamed on cultural misunderstandings,
differing levels of language proficiency, or interpersonal problems, and may in

193

actuality result from concerns about the viability and security of employment in

home locations.

The Paradox of Rewards

Motivation theory relies on rewards to explain performance. Compensation
specialists struggle to set up pay and benefit plans that meet worker expectations and
company budgets. The pay structures for global teams have not yet been fully
realized. Corporations have not worked out all the tangles that can occur with
multinational operations and ad hoc global team work. Human resource managers
will need to develop programs and policies that optimize performance in the global
environment. This study uncovers a small part of why that is a critical concern for
organizations.

Regression results in this study indicate that rewards were negatively
correlated with dispersed team performance effectiveness. It is important to
remember that rewards systems for these dispersed team members were based on
their performance at their home location. With this in mind, the results reflect two
aspects of the relationships of rewards to performance. First, the team members in
this study were clear that there was little to no linkage between their team
performance and their compensation. This is serious, but may be overcome by
motivation or team cohesiveness. More seriously, the negative correlation reflects a
tension related to the local versus global dilemma discussed above. Team members
who are rewarded and promoted based on the recommendations of local supervisors

may feel it is wiser to put their energies into local work. In that situation, any work

194

done for the global team could be detrimental to personal interests. Clearly this
could cause team performance effectiveness to drop.

Rewards have intangible or intrinsic as well as tangible components. In
specific circumstances one aspect of rewards will have more power than another.
For instance, in this study one of the teams was presented with a corporate-wide
award for the quality of their team efforts. When team members were interviewed-
each one mentioned this award; and for several it was a highlight of their
experiences on the team. Recognition for their efforts and the camaraderie of
preparing a presentation for the awards ceremony was very important to these team
members. The team’s performance is still high caliber and the team enjoys a level
of cohesiveness not seen in other teams.

The cohesiveness among the members of this team contributed to the
collaborative team environment observed among the team members. A new member
joined the team during the observation. He was immediately included in the team’s
interactions and was learning as he joined in the discussion. Effecting these team
transitions from new member to participant swiftly and easily is of real value to the
team and to the organization. The expertise of the new team member was utilized
almost immediately to aid in resolving team problems. This is an example where a
team’s skill is not recognized or compensated and an example of the real value
added by good interpersonal skills. Incentives and reward systems must be
developed that recognize the importance of factors like group dynamics and

employees who have skills that enhance the positive development of these dynamics.

I95

:\'.I .

Strategic Alignment Issues

Global teams are particularly sensitive to instability in corporate alignment.
If the corporation shifts from a centralized system to a more decentralized system of
management. the team’s activities will be affected by a ripple effect of changes at
both the local and the global levels. In this study, the Copy Exactly Initiative was
focused on commonization of circuit board manufacturing processes and equipment
across the electronics plants in the company. When the project started, the chief
executive of the firm advocated for the project as an important component of the
overall company strategy. When he retired, his successors shifted focus to their own
management agendas.

As executive attention focused increasingly on other projects, the members of
the Copy Exactly Initiative began to notice that there was less money for travel,
more pressure for results, and greater priority on other areas. Belt-tightening
reduced the money available to support the equipment purchases and process
changes recommended by the teams. Even before funds became more restricted, the
team recognized the shift in corporate focus. More subtle messages preceded radical
changes as managers pulled people off initiative tasks to do work that by implication

Was more important. The impact on team performance metrics such as attendance
Was obvious. For example, overall attendance among the team members on one
team dropped 65% between 1999 and 2000 to date.l

Global teams are networks within an organization. Teams can function as

integrators, coordinators, transmitters of information, innovative hotbeds. or any of a

IThese figures were provided by the company.

196

number of other roles. Considering the team‘s role vis-a-vis overall corporate
strategies is an integral part of establishing a global team. Nadler and Tushman
(1997) advise those designing new organizational structures or reconfiguring existing
structures to consider the importance of linkages and processes at three levels:
strategic, business, and support. Mankin, Cohen, and Bikson (1996) agree: “The
nature of the organization itself—its structures, policies, and technology
platforms—must change to support the teams and their technologies as they operate
within, and increasingly across, its boundaries” (9). Global teams need to be part of
what Hamel and Prahalad (1994) call the ‘strategic architecture’ or the plan for
deployment and configuration of the structural competencies needed for future
success. The interaction and role of organizational units within the strategic
business objectives is an important area for future study as new structures such as

global teams arise.

Cross-Functional Teams, Matrix Teams, and Globally Dispersed Teams

Although cross functional teams and matrix organizations are not part of this
study, these two organizational structures share common elements and dilemmas
with globally dispersed teams. In an article on cross-functional sourcing teams,
Trent (1998) discusses the individual and collective nature of the input and attitudes
required of members of cross-functional teams. This perspective provides a
generalizable way of discussing these three structures.

The complexity of the managerial relationships among these three structures
is also similar. Matrix teams have differing hierarchical structures that can present
problems for those who must try to make several managers happy. While a matrix

197

team may have a functional manager and a project manager. the potential tensions
must have common characteristics with those experienced by team members caught
between a local manager and a global manager. Chaudron (1995) states that
creating cross-functional teams that cooperate is one of the major problems faced by
those leading such an effort. Teams find that past histories of competition between
departments or functions can cause friction. Again this reflects elements

experienced by the teams in this study. Future research will be valuable in the effort
of teasing out the exact nature of the similarities and differences between these

organizational structures.

Knowledge Creation and Management Issues

Most management initiatives are aimed at learning how to do something
faster, better, or cheaper. Learning is required to attain any one or all of these goals.
At Visteon, knowledge management is an espoused goal with liberal input from
experts such as Peter Senge (Senge 1990). One of the critical roles that global
teams can play in an organization is the creation of innovative solutions and the
diffusion of information for use throughout the firm.

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) state, “The role of the organization in the
organizational knowledge-creation process is to provide the proper context for
facilitating group activities as well as the creation and accumulation of knowledge at
the individual level” (74). This description resonates with this study’s goal of
uncovering information about the influence of the environment or context on

dispersed teams. Viewing the Copy Exactly Initiative as an organizational

198

knowledge creation process allows for a different angle of reflection on the utility of
dispersed teams.

Above, the discussion focused on strategic intent and Nonaka and Takeuchi
discuss intention as one of five conditions an organization requires to promote
organizational learning and knowledge creation. In the case of Copy Exactly, the
deliberate creation of knowledge was never mentioned as a direct goal, but the
attendance metric was a limited strategy to create knowledge by encouraging
participation. Team structure also supported information sharing by including people
from every plant. Finally, selecting team members for their experience and expertise
also makes high levels of information available on each team. At a corporate level
there does not appear to be any plan for optimizing or utilizing the knowledge
created and residing in these teams.

The second condition for promoting knowledge is autonomy, at both
individual and group levels. Team members were not just allowed to work
autonomously, as Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) recommend: the global team
structure ensured that team members had to exercise some autonomy just to get their
tasks completed. Team autonomy allows workers to express and share original ideas
in ways that amplify the individual perspectives. Copy Exactly teams developed
their own recommendations for the BKMs in each step of the circuit board
manufacturing process. Their autonomy was limited by the constraints on resources
necessary to implement these plans as fully as possible.

Fluctuation and creative chaos are the third conditions for knowledge
creation. The global teams in this study certainly met this condition. They were
continually faced with situations that challenged routines and questioned existing

199

organizational practices. The rapid changes in leadership and constant uncertainty
created a sense of tension and ambiguity that might match that prescribed to
stimulate creativity. However, in order for these factors to have their most positive
effect, people must have the time “to reflect upon their actions” (Nonaka and
Takeuchi 1995: 79). It is not clear that team members in this study had an
opportunity to develop enough perspective on the changes. It is also unclear how
much of the constant fluctuation was an attempt to change how people think and to
encourage them to move out of their “comfort zones.’

Redundancy in the knowledge creating organization is “the existence of
information that goes beyond the immediate operational requirement of
organizational members” (80). Redundancy increases the speed of creating new
knowledge in a group, since the gap in simultaneous meaning between individuals is
smaller. The global teams in this study were good examples of this condition.
Team members shared enough information that they were able to finish each other’s
sentences. In addition there were frequent moments when one team member would
say: “Remember when this happened and we did that?” The group would be off and
running in search of a solution after just such a simple remark. In a very real sense,
redundancy of shared knowledge parallels the commonization of manufacturing
processes that the group was addressing. Plants shared capabilities that allowed
product to be moved easily from one to another.

The final condition is requisite variety. Nonaka and Takeuchi draw on
Ashby’s belief that “an organization’s internal diversity must match the variety and
complexity of the environment in order to deal with challenges posed by the
environment” (82). Surely, the importance of diversity in a global team is a

200

reflection of this idea. Team members in this study reflect much of the variety and
complexity of the organizational environment. In addition, they have ready access to
information and the expertise of team members, which allows quick responses to
situations in their home locations, as well as in the team setting. Typically. at an
organizational level such variety would be optimized in a flexible and hierarchically
flat structure of the kind that seems most characteristic of the ad hoc networks
formed by global teams. Additional research on the design and structure of global
teams. especially as they relate to overall organizational design, will add to our

knowledge in this area.

Limitations and Additional Implications for Future Research

A number of concerns arise over the limitations of this study. Because it is
exploratory in nature, the study is limited in its scope. There is a small sample of
teams and those teams are all from one company. In addition, this is a view of
global teams in only one industry, so study results may not generalize. Changes
within the organization constrained the data collection to four sites rather than five
sites. thereby reducing the number of interviews possible within the new parameters.
Future researchers will want to greatly expand the scope of the investigation to
include more teams and participants, as well as more companies across industries.
Of greater importance is the introduction of bias due the fact that the participants
in this study were working in a highly ambiguous and rapidly shifting corporate
environment. The constant concern over employment security and competitive
factors could skew outcomes in all forms of data collection. This may be of greater
importance in an exploratory study such as this, where limits existed on the amount

201

of traditional and vetted research that could be applied to complement this study's
research design.

As noted above, many more variables need to be studied. For example, of
interest would be the relationship of dispersed team effectiveness to job design and
task interdependency. Training on how to be an effective global team member and
the impact of the presence or absence of such training are topics relevant to
performance effectiveness not touched on in this study. Greater scrutiny of issues
such as shared mental models and collective learning would make valuable
contributions to our understanding of this phenomenon.

Re-examination of the model and model specification may allow for greater
explanation of the variance in the model. Researchers will want to pay close
attention to issues of moderating variables and interactions between variables.
Multidisciplinary research that includes aspects of the technical, in conjunction with
the more social/human aspects of dispersed teams, will add an additional and
worthwhile dimension to study outcomes.

This study raised more questions than it answered. For example, how can
technology be most effectively used to overcome geographic and temporal
differences characteristic of dispersed teams? What types of compensation structure
reconfiguration will be optimal for dispersed teams? Are the motivational factors
and influences different for members of dispersed teams? What is the relationship
between dispersed teams and other programs or processes, such as lean
manufacturing and total quality management? Are certain organizational designs,
such as networks, more apprOpriate for the effective performance of dispersed
teams? Can management rethink or reconfigure organizational metrics to make them

202

 

applicable across functional and structural boundaries? Obviously. there is much
more to discover about dispersed teams.

Finally, it would be beneficial to undertake long-term studies of dispersed
teams rather than the more short-term studies exemplified by this research. Long-
term studies would involve observation and study of longitudinal aspects of
dispersed team development, interaction, and effectiveness.

Workplace teams are clearly not a fad but an integral aspect of the today’s
organization and current management theory and practice. Globalization and
technology now encourage multinational corporations to establish and support teams
that fit in a rapidly changing environment. Globally dispersed work teams will
continue to evolve and grow in importance. This study is a small step to a better
understanding of the concept of globally dispersed teams, the interaction of team

members, the dilemmas they face, and some factors the influence their effectiveness.

203

RESOURCES CITED

Baugh, S. G. and G. B. Graen (1997). “Effects of Team Gender and Racial

Composition on Perceptions of Team Performance in Cross-Functional Teams.”
Group and Organization Management 22 (3): 366-384.

Chaudron, D. (1995). “Organizational Development: How to Improve Cross-
Functional Teams.” HR Focus 72 (8): 1—4.

Denison, D. R., S. L. Hart, and J. A. Kahn (1996). “From Chimneys to Cross-
Functional Teams: Developing and Validating a diagnostic Model.” Academy of
Management Journal 39 (4): 1005—1024.

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The Design of Work Teams. Handbook of Organizational
Behavior. J. W. Lorsch. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall: 315—342.

Hackman, R. J., Ed. (1990). Groups that Work (and Those That Don't): Creating
Conditions for Effective Teamwork. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Hamel, G. and C. K. Prahalad (1994). Competing for the Future: Breakthrough
Strategies for Seizing Control of your Industry and Creating the Markets of
Tomorrow. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.

Katzenbach, J. R. and D. K. Smith (1993). “The Rules for Managing Cross-
Functional Reengineering Teams.” Planning Review 21 (2): 12—13.

Klein, J. A. and B. J. Barrett (2000). “One Foot in a Global Team, One Foot at the
Local Site: Making Sense out of Living in Two Worlds Simultaneously.”
Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams. M. Beyerlein. Rotterdam,
the Netherlands, JAI. Vol. 89: Virtual Teams: Forthcoming.

Kolodny, H. F. (1979). “Evolution to a Matrix Organization.” Academy of
Management Review 4 (4): 543—551.

Locke, E. A. and G. P. Latham (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task
Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

Mankin, D., S. G. Cohen, and T. K. Bikson (1996). Teams and Technology:
Fulfilling the Promise of the New Organization. Boston, MA, Harvard Business
School Press.

McDermott, L. C., N. Brawley, and W. W. Waite (1998). World Class Teams:
Working Across Borders. New York, John Wiley & Sons.

204

 

Nadler, D. A. and M. L. Tushman (1997). Competing by Design: The Power of
Organizational Architecture. New York, Oxford University Press, Inc.

Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How
Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York, Oxford
University Press.

Proehl, R. A. (1996). “Cross-Functional Teams: A Panacea or Just Another
Headache?” Supervision 57 (6): 6—9.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. New York, Doubleday/Currency.

Trent, R. (1998). “Individual and Collective Team Effort: A Vital Part of Sourcing
Team Success.” International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management
34 (4): 46—54.

205

 

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

Communication and Resources

Please help me to gather some data on two crucial areas for dispersed teams: communication links and resource
availability. Answer as many questions as you can. Please try to answer as accurately as possible. Your
participation is voluntary and you may withdraw at any time.

Please select the answer that best describes how you feel about the availability of the following resources.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resources
m
Type of Resource Need Much More I Enough I Too Much
Information needed to complete task
. . . l 2 3 4 5
(directions, goals. expectations. etc.
Training in how to be an effective team I 2 3 4 5
Materials to do the task (computers.
I 2 3 4 5
software. space, etc.)
Number of people I 2 3 4 5
Skills in the group to complete task I 2 3 4 5
Time for face-to-face meetings I 2 3 4 5
Facilitation of meetings or team work I 2 3 4 5
Tools for non face-to-face interaction
. l 2 3 4 5
(telephones. fax, email, groupware, etc.)
Time for non face-to-face meetings I 2 3 4 5
Support from other parts of the organization I 2 3 4 5
_——di

 

 

 

 

In this section. think about the types of communication links that you use on your team and estimate how often you
use any of the following types of communication. Pick the ONE time period that is most appropriate. For example.
if you meet 6 times a year as a team face-to-face then you would put ‘6’ in the yearly column and leave the other
columns empty.

Communication

Type of Communication Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Yearly ll

Face-to-face meetings

 

 

 

Formal telephone calls. i.e., conference calls

 

Informal calls to other team members

 

 

Mail or written communication

 

Video-con ferences

 

Conferences using electronic/intemet software

 

Email messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ll Other. please specify

 

207

 

APPENDIX B

Primary Survey Document

Thank you for taking a few minutes to help me with this final stage of a study of global teams. The
Copy Exactly Team has been at the core of this study and l have been pleased to meet many of you
already. You may also have heard about the study through a recent message from Johnson Yun.
Please assist me by completing a survey about the Copy Exactly Team.

Your participation is vital to the success of this study. All individual answers will be
confidential and your participation is voluntary. The survey takes 15-20 minutes to complete.
Answers need to be returned by August 20.

You have two options for completing the survey:
1) If you have outside access to the intemet, please answer the questions on the web at the following
address:
http://www.nbn.com/~willybov/bgrrett/smeyhtml
2) If you do not have outside access to the intemet, you may answer the questions in the complete
version of the survey enclosed with this message. Just "edit" the message with your answers and
‘reply’ to the message. Select the answer that best reflects how you feel about each question.
Please select the version that you can complete most easily.
Thank you in advance for your help with this project.
Begin survey here:
Dispersed Teams Survey
This survey is a vital element of a study of globally dispersed teams within Visteon. Your
participation is very important to the success of this project and your answers will be kept
confidential. Completion and return of this survey will indicate that you understand that your

participation is voluntary.

Please complete the survey as accurately and carefully as you can. ALL the questions should be
answered by selecting the one answer that most closely reflects how you feel about each question.

Part I: Attitudes towards Teams
1. Work in a team may not be easier but the results are better.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA
vvvvv

208

 

 

2. I am not comfortable sharing what I know with a team.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA
vvvvv

DJ

Working with a group is better than working alone.

I = strongly agree
2 = somewhat agree
= neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree
5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA

4. If you want something done right, you’ve got to do it yourself.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA

Part II: Attitudes towards the Copy Exactly Team
5. I believe that the work the Copy Exactly Team does is excellent.

I = strongly agree

2 somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAA/\A
vvvvv

6. I can rely on the Copy Exactly Team to make good decisions.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA

7. The members of the Copy Exactly Team know how to do their team-related work well.

I strongly agree

2 somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAA/RA
vvvvv

209

8. l have complete confidence and trust in the Copy Exactly Team members get the job done.

strongly agree

somewhat agree

= neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

Mk)—

II
AAA/NA
vvvvv

9. The members of the Copy Exactly Team have the technical expertise needed to do the team's

work.
I = strongly agree ( )
2 = somewhat agree ( )
3 = neither agree nor disagree ( )
4 = somewhat disagree ( )
5 = strongly disagree ( )

Part III: Attitudes toward Global Team Membership
10. Language is not a barrier to Copy Exactly Team success.

1 = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

VVVVV

ll. Team members of different countries do not work well together on the Copy Exactly Team.

= strongly agree

somewhat agree

neither agree nor disagree
somewhat disagree

= strongly disagree

AAAAA

l
2
3
4
5

12. The variety of skills among of Copy Exactly Team members complements each other.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA
vvvvv

13. Variation among people on the Copy Exactly Team helps create better solutions.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAA/NA
vvvvv

210

14. Cultural differences hinder Copy Exactly Team performance.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA

Part IV: Accountability and Rewards
15. The work of the Copy Exactly Team is an important priority to plant management.

1 = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA

16. The Copy Exactly Team is accountable to the highest levels of company management.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA
vvvvv

17. Work on the Copy Exactly Team is not linked to the compensation I receive from the company.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAA/\A
vvvvv

18. I don’t need extra compensation, working with the people on the Copy Exactly Team is
rewarding enough.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA
vvvvv

19. Any rewards I receive for my work with the Copy Exactly Team must come from my immediate
supervisor.

= strongly agree
2 = somewhat agree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree
5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA
vvvvv

211

 

20. My immediate supervisor doesn’t understand the importance of the work I do for this team.

I = strongly agree
2 = somewhat agree
3 = neither agree nor disagree

4 = somewhat disagree
5 = strongly disagree

vvvvv

21. No matter how global the focus of some of my work is. it’s what I do locally that gets rewarded.

l = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

vvvvv

Part V: Opinions on COpy Exactly Team Effectiveness

22. The Copy Exactly Team solves complex problems.

I = strongly agree ( )
2 = somewhat agree ( )
3 = neither agree nor disagree ( )
4 = somewhat disagree ( )
5 = strongly disagree ( )

t0
Lu

The common process for selecting equipment devised by the Copy Exactly Team saves
individual plants a lot of money.

= strongly agree (
somewhat agree (
neither agree nor disagree (
(
(

somewhat disagree
strongly disagree

khkUJN—
ll
vvvvv

24. Time to market for electronic products is being reduced through the work of the Copy Exactly
Team.

I = strongly agree (
2 somewhat agree (
3 = neither agree nor disagree (
(
(

4 = somewhat disagree
5 = strongly disagree

25. The Copy Exactly Team makes fast decisions.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

= neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

DJ
AAAAA

212

 

26. Copy Exactly Team decisions are of high quality.

1 = strongly agree
2 = somewhat agree
= neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree
5 = strongly disagree

27. An important information-sharing network has been created among members of the Copy Exactly
Team.

1 = strongly agree
2 somewhat agree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree
= strongly disagree

28. The longer the Copy Exactly Team members work together, the more smoothly the team
functions.

1 = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

Part VI: Copy Exactly Team Goals Clarity and Organizational Support
29. Production goals take priority over the goals of the Copy Exactly Team.
= strongly agree

I
2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4

5

somewhat disagree
= strongly disagree

VVVVV

30. The company does not understand what the Copy Exactly Team needs to be successful.

I = strongly agree
2 = somewhat agree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree
= strongly disagree

AAA/“A

3l. The company needs to learn how to manage teams as well as individuals for efforts such as Copy
Exactly to be effective.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAA/RA

213

 

 

32. The Copy Exactly Team is a global initiative but the company has no global structure of policies
and procedures to support it.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA
VVVVV

33. No one within the company but the team members believes the work of the Copy Exactly Team
is important.

1 = strongly agree (
2 = somewhat agree (
3 = neither agree nor disagree (
4 = <
5 (

omewhat disagree
trongly disagree

S
S

34. The Copy Exactly Team has all the material resources (e.g. money for equipment, travel funds.
computers) needed to make it successful.

= strongly agree

= somewhat agree

= neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

DJ Ix)—

AAAAA

35. My local boss supports global teams as useful so long as they don’t disrupt local activities.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA

36. My boss understands the goals of the Copy Exactly Team.

1 = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAA/RA
vvvvv

37. All members of the Copy Exactly Team agree on the team’s goals.

1 = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
= somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA

214

 

38. Top management understands the goals of the Copy Exactly Team.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA
vvvvv

Part VII: Communication Links

39. Members of the Copy Exactly Team are trained to use electronic media effectively as work tools.

1 = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAA/‘K

40. The time the Copy Exactly Team spends at face-to-face meetings is key to team effectiveness.

= strongly agree

somewhat agree

neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

DJ to ~—
A A A A A

41. During teleconferences the Copy Exactly Team work is less creative and more routine than it is
during face-to-face meetings.

= strongly agree

somewhat agree

neither agree nor disagree
somewhat disagree
strongly disagree

MAWN-d
ll
AAAAA
VVVVV

42. Time zone differences are easily overcome by electronic communications.

1 = strongly agree (
2 = somewhat agree (
3 = neither agree nor disagree (
4 = somewhat disagree (

= strongly disagree (

VVVVV

43. The team has learned how to develop personal relationships while using electronic media.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA
vvvvv

215

 

 

44. Copy Exactly Team members get the most accomplished when they meet face-to-face.

= strongly agree

= somewhat agree

neither agree nor disagree
= somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

1
2
3
4

45. The Copy Exactly Team does not communicate details of its work effectively to the rest of the

company.
1 = strongly agree ( )
2 = somewhat agree ( )
3 = neither agree nor disagree ( )
4 = somewhat disagree ( )
5 = strongly disagree ( )

Part VIII. Leadership

46. The Copy Exactly Team is more successful because team leaders actively work to remove
barriers.

= strongly agree (
= somewhat agree (
= neither agree nor disagree (
(
(

b310—

4 = somewhat disagree
5 = strongly disagree

47. Coaches on the Copy Exactly Team help members to learn how to work together effectively.

= strongly agree

= somewhat agree

neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

DJ IQ —‘
A A A A A

48. Company leadership and the Copy Exactly Team share common goals.

= strongly agree
2 = somewhat agree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree
5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA
VVVVV

49. Company leadership is committed to the changes that the Copy Exactly Team makes.

= strongly agree

= somewhat agree

neither agree nor disagree
somewhat disagree

= strongly disagree

AAAAA
vvvvv

l
2
3
4
5

216

 

 

50. Managers responsible for Copy Exactly help link the project to the rest of the company.

= strongly agree

= somewhat agree

neither agree nor disagree
somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

1
2
3
4

AAAAA

Part IX: Copy Exactly as a Community of Practice

51.

54.

The details of the Copy Exactly Team’s work are often defined by the group as they talk with
each other.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

vvvvv

Over time the Copy Exactly Team is creating its own unique ‘history’ of stories and ways of
doing things.

= strongly agree

somewhat agree

neither agree nor disagree
somewhat disagree
strongly disagree

thHN—d
ll

AAAAA

VVVVV

. Sharing knowledge with the members of the team is an important part of my work with Copy

Exactly.

= strongly agree

somewhat agree

= neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

ll
“AAA/K
vvvvv

As the Copy Exactly Team continues to work toward a shared goal, the relationships among team
members are stronger and more important.

= strongly agree

somewhat agree

neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

ll
AAAAA
vvvvv

217

 

Part X: Knowledge
55. I never expected a team to generate so much useful knowledge.

1 = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

56. Working on the Copy Exactly Team gives me access to useful knowledge I can get nowhere else.

= strongly agree

= somewhat agree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree
5 = strongly disagree

AAA/KR
VVVVV

57. I never expected to learn as much as I do from other members of the Copy Exactly Team.

1 = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA
VVVVV

58. Working together the Copy Exactly Team creates solutions that I could not create working alone.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

vvvvv

59. I use the Copy Exactly website regularly to get answers to my questions.

I = strongly agree
2 = somewhat agree
= neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree
5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA
vvvvv

218

The following questions are for Copy Exactly Continuous Improvement Team and Core Team

members only. All others, please skip to Part XII.

Part XI: For CIT and Core Team Members Only

60. I do the best I can in my Copy Exactly work because my team members’ success depends on me.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 =

5

somewhat disagree
= strongly disagree

AAA/\A

61. I cannot focus on Copy Exactly Team work when my boss wants other work completed first.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAA/\A

62. I am satisfied with my performance on the Copy Exactly Team.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

AAAAA

63. The benefits of working on the Copy Exactly Team are often not tangible.

= strongly agree (
somewhat agree (
= neither agree nor disagree (
(
(

DJN—t
ll

4 = somewhat disagree
= strongly disagree

vvvvv

64. I can do Copy Exactly Team work without concern because I know my boss supports my efforts.

I = strongly agree

2 = somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

VVVVV

65- I completely understand the goals of Copy Exactly.

= strongly agree

= somewhat agree

neither agree nor disagree
somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

I
2
3
4

AAAAA

219

 

66. l derive great personal satisfaction from my work with the members of the Copy Exactly Team.

strongly agree

= somewhat agree

neither agree nor disagree
somewhat disagree

= strongly disagree

M59310—
ll
AAA/\A
vvvvv

Part XII: Final Questions
67. Copy Exactly is a critical element of corporate strategy.
= strongly agree

I
2 somewhat agree

3 = neither agree nor disagree
4

5

= somewhat disagree
= strongly disagree

68. Copy Exactly has little value and we should stop it now.

strongly agree

= somewhat agree

= neither agree nor disagree
somewhat disagree

5 = strongly disagree

bleJ-d

AAAAA

220

 

Demographic Information

Location of facility where you work:

 

Number of years working for company years.
I have lived overseas: yes no
I have worked overseas: yes no

 

 

If you are a member of a Copy Exactly Team, please check the appropriate team/s:

PWB Core Team
Printers/Ovens

SMD Placement
Wave/Selective Solder
Line Configuration
Design Rules

PWB Technology
Automatic Inspection

If you are a team coach, please check here
If you are a team leader, please check here

Male Female

Please select the correct age group.

20-25[ ] 26-30[ ] 31-35[ ] 36-40[ ]4I-45[ ] 46-50[ ] 51-55[ ] 56-60[ ]6l-65[ ] 66-70[ ]
older than 70[ ]

Nationality:

First Language:

Other Languages Spoken:

Thank you for completing this survey.

221

 

 

b)

C)

d)

g)

h)

APPENDIX C
Interview Protocol

When I say the words ‘Copy Exactly Team’ what do you think of?
Are you a regular member of the team?
Or: What is your relationship to the team?
How do people get selected for the team?
What tasks do you perform related to the team?
How would you describe your role?
Roughly what percent of your total work time is spent on Copy Exactly?
When do you meet with the team and what is that like?
What works well and what doesn’t when the team meets?
What is the overall goal of the team?

In your opinion what are the essential performance metrics for this team?
In your job whose performance expectations must you meet?

How do you know when the team is performing at a high level?

Whose feedback do you value most?

What does the team need to perform successfully?

Are there conditions within the team that could cause it to perform poorly?

Is there a relationship between diversity among team members and team
performance?

Describe the role of organizational leadership in the performance of the team.

How does team performance affect your rewards?
Are there hard choices to make about your work with the team?

Are you/your facility doing anything you wouldn’t normally have done if you
weren’t working with the team/other plants?

How does the Copy Exactly team link to other initiatives within the
company, such as FPS?

Have you worked on teams that were dispersed like Copy Exactly and how
were they different?

What lessons have you learned as a Copy Exactly team member?

*Tell me something you will remember about this team even after its work is
finished.

222

APPENDIX D

Participant Information Form

Participation in this study is voluntary and all information that you provide will be kept confidential.
Please fill out this form carefully and clearly. You may skip any questions that you are not comfortable
answering.

Name: Position:

 

Division of Visteon: Facility:

 

Facility Location: (city and country)

 

Number of years working for Visteon Ford
I have lived overseas: yes no
I have worked overseas: yes no

 

I am currently a member of this team or teams; (give name/s commonly used at Visteon)

 

Demographic Information

Male Female

Please select the correct age group.

20—25[ ] 26—30[ I 31—35[ ] 36-40[ ] 41-45[ I 46-50[ ] 51-55[ ] 56- 60[ ]6l-65[ ]
66-70[ ] older than 70[ ]

Nationality:

 

First Language: Other Languages Spoken

 

 

Education Level Attained:

 

 

II High School Graduate: 4 Year College Degree (indicate major):

 

 

 

 

 

2 Year Associate Degree: Master’s Degree (indicate area):
Vocational Degree: PhD (indicate area):
Other (please list):

 

If there are clarifying questions or for other aspects of the research, please contact me at the
following work number (indicate country code, extension, etc. as needed).

 

My email address is

 

223