This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by O'Leary, M. B. Articles by Mortensen, M.

Go (Con)figure: Subgroups, Imbalance, and Isolates in Geographically Dispersed Teams

McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057
Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142
michael.oleary{at}sloan.mit.edu
markm{at}mit.edu

Research regarding geographically dispersed teams (GDTs) is increasingly common and has yielded many insights regarding the effects of spatio-temporal and socio-demographic factors on GDT functioning and performance. Largely missing, however, is research on the effects of the basic geographic configuration of GDTs. In this study, we explore the impact of GDT configuration (i.e., the relative number of team members at different sites, independent of the characteristics of those members or the spatial and temporal distances among them) on individual, subgroup, and team-level dynamics. In a quasi-experimental setting, we examine the effects of configuration using a sample of 62 six-person teams in four different one- and two-site configurations. As predicted based on social categorization, we find that configuration significantly affects team dynamics—independent of spatio-temporal distance and socio-demographic factors. More specifically, we find that the social categorization in teams with geographically based subgroups (defined as two or more members per site) triggers significantly weaker identification with the team, less effective transactive memory, more conflict, and more coordination problems. Furthermore, imbalance in the size of subgroups (i.e., the uneven distribution of members across sites) invokes a competitive, coalitional mentality that exacerbates these effects; subgroups with a numerical minority of team members report significantly poorer scores on identification, transactive memory, conflict, and coordination problems. In contrast, teams with geographically isolated members (i.e., members who have no teammates at their site) have better scores on these same four outcomes than both balanced and imbalanced configurations.

Key Words: team; virtual teams; geographically dispersed teams; geographic dispersion; configuration; isolation; imbalance