Perceived discontinuities and constructed continuities in virtual work

Information Systems Journal

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 29-52

  Watson Manheim, Mary Beth ^a   Chudoba, Katherine M ^b   Crowston, Kevin ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Boundaries; Discontinuity; Virtual teams; Virtual work

Indexed keywords

DISCONTINUITY; DYNAMIC PHENOMENA; VIRTUAL TEAM; VIRTUAL WORKS; WORK PRACTICES;

EMPLOYMENT; HUMAN ENGINEERING; SEMICONDUCTOR INSULATOR BOUNDARIES;

MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84855245156     PISSN: 13501917     EISSN: 13652575     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00371.x     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ancona, D.G. (1990) Outward bound: strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 334-365.
2. Ancona, D.G. & Caldwell, D.F. (1992) Bridging the boundary: external activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634-665.
3. Ashforth, B.E., Kreiner, G.E. & Fugate, M. (2000) All in a day's work: boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472-491.
4. Bjørn, P. & Ngwenyama, O. (2009) Virtual team collaboration: building shared meaning, resolving breakdowns and creating translucence. Information Systems Journal, 19, 227-253.
5. Choi, J.N. (2002) External activities and team effectiveness: review and theoretical development. Small Group Research, 33, 181-208.
6. Chudoba, K.M., Wynn, E., Lu, M. & Watson-Manheim, M.B. (2005) How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality in a global organization. Information Systems Journal, 15, 279-306.
7. Chudoba, K.M., Watson-Manheim, M.B., Crowston, K. & Lee, C.S. (In press) ICT-supported meetings in practice. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing.
8. Cohen, S.G. & Gibson, C.B. (2003) In the beginning: introduction and framework. In: Virtual Teams That Work: Creating Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness, Gibson, C.B. & Cohen, S.G. (eds), pp. 1-13. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, USA.
9. Cramton, C.D. (2001) The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346-371.
10. Crowston, K., Howison, J., Masango, C. & Eseryel, U.Y. (2007) The role of face-to-face meetings in technology-supported self-organizing distributed teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, 50, 185-203.
11. Dube, L. & Pare, G. (2001) Global virtual teams. Communications of the ACM, 44, 71-73.
12. Espinosa, J.A., Cummings, J.N., Wilson, J.M. & Pearce, B.M. (2003) Team boundary issues across multiple global firms. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 157-190.
13. Feldman, M.S. & Pentland, B.T. (2003) Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94-118.
14. Fiol, C.M. & O'Connor, E.J. (2005) Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams: untangling the contradictions. Organization Science, 16, 19-32.
15. Gabarro, J.J. (1990) The development of working relationships. In: Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, Galegher, J., Kraut, R.E. & Egido, C. (eds), pp. 79-110. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, USA.
16. George, J.M. & Jones, G.R. (2001) Towards a process model of individual change in organizations. Human Relations, 54, 419-444.
17. Ghemawat, P. (2001) Distance still matters: the hard reality of global expansion. Harvard Business Review, 79, 137-147.
18. Gibson, C.B. & Gibbs, J.L. (2006) Unpacking the concept of virtuality: the effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 451-495.
19. Griffith, T.L. (1999) Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 24, 472-488.
20. Griffith, T.L., Sawyer, J.E. & Neale, M.A. (2003) Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals and teams. MIS Quarterly, 27, 265-287.
21. House, R., Rousseau, D.M. & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995) The meso paradigm: a framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In: Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17, Cummings, L.L. & Staw, B.M. (eds), pp. 71-114. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, USA.
22. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y. & Wei, K.-K. (2006/2007) Conflict and performance in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, 237-274.
23. Lamont, M. & Molnar, V. (2002) The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167-195.
24. Levina, N. & Vaast, E. (2006) Turning a community into a market: a practice perspective on information technology use in boundary spanning. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22, 13-37.
25. Lipnack, J. & Stamps, J. (1997) Virtual Teams: Reaching across Space, Time and Organizations with Technology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.
26. Louis, M.R. & Sutton, R.I. (1991) Switching cognitive gears: from habits of mind to active thinking. Human Relations, 44, 55-76.
27. Lu, M., Watson-Manheim, M.B., Chudoba, K.M. & Wynn, E. (2006) How does virtuality affect team performance in a global organization? Understanding the impact of variety of practices. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 9, 4-23.
28. Majchrzak, A., Rice, R.E., Malhotra, A., King, N. & Ba, S.L. (2000) Technology adaptation: the case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly, 24, 569-600.
29. Marrone, J.A. (2010) Team boundary spanning: a multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. Journal of Management, 36, 911-940.
30. Marrone, J.A., Tesluk, P.E. & Carson, J.B. (2007) A multi-level investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1423-1439.
31. Mathieu, J.E., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273-283.
32. Maznevski, M.L. & Chudoba, K.M. (2000) Bridging space over time: global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11, 473-492.
33. McKinney, V. & Whiteside, M. (2006) Maintaining distributed relationships. Communications of the ACM, 49, 82-86.
34. Mortensen, M., Caya, O. & Pinsonneault, A. (2009) Understanding Virtual Team Performance: A Synthesis of Research on the Effects of Team Design, Emergent Processes, and Emergent States. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA, USA.
35. Mortensen, M. & Hinds, P.J. (2001) Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 212-238.
36. Nandhakumar, J. & Baskerville, R.L. (2006) Durability of online teamworking: patterns of trust. Information Technology and People, 19, 371-389.
37. Niederman, F. & Beise, C. (1999) Defining the 'virtualness' of groups, teams, and meetings. ACM SIGMIS Computer Personnel Research Conference, pp. 14-18. New Orleans, LA.
38. Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P. & Salomon, I. (1990) Barriers in spatial interactions and communications: a conceptual exploration. Annals of Regional Science, 24, 237-252.
39. O'Leary, M.B. & Cummings, J.N. (2007) The spatial, temporal and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31, 433-452.
40. O'Leary, M.B., Woolley, A. & Mortenson, M. (2008) Multiple team membership: learning and productivity effects for individuals, teams and organizations. OCIS Division, Academy of Management Conference, Anaheim, CA.
41. Orlikowski, W.J. (2000) Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11, 404-428.
42. Orlikowski, W.J. (2002) Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13, 249-273.
43. Pickering, A. (1995) The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
44. Powell, A., Piccoli, G. & Ives, B. (2004) Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 35, 6-36.
45. Putnam, L. & Stohl, C. (1990) Bona fide groups: a reconceptualization of groups in context. Communication Studies, 41, 248-265.
46. Rice, R.E. (1992) Task analyzability, use of new media, and effectiveness: a multi-site exploration of media richness. Organization Science, 3, 475-500.
47. Schneider, S.C. (1987) Managing boundaries in organizations. Political Psychology, 8, 379-393.
48. Scott, C.R. & Timmerman, C.E. (1999) Communication technology use and multiple workplace identifications among organizational teleworkers with varied degrees of virtuality. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42, 240-260.
49. Thomas, D.M., Bostrom, R.P. & Gouge, M. (2007) Making knowledge work in virtual teams. Communications of the ACM, 50, 85-90.
50. Watson-Manheim, M.B. & Bélanger, F. (2007) Communication media repertoires: dealing with the multiplicity of media choices. MIS Quarterly, 31, 267-293.
51. Watson-Manheim, M.B., Chudoba, K. & Crowston, K. (2002) Discontinuities and Continuities: A New Way to Understand Virtual Work. Information, Technology, and People, 15, 191-209.
52. Wilson, J.M., O'Leary, M., Metiu, A. & Jett, Q. (2008) Perceptions of proximity in virtualwork: explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies, 29, 979-1002.
53. Zigurs, I. (2003) Leadership in virtual teams: oxymoron or opportunity? Organizational Dynamics, 31, 339-351.