Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding
Conflict in Distributed Teams
Pamela J. Hinds • Diane E. Bailey
Center for Work, Technology and Organization, Department of Management Science and Engineering,
Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-4026
phinds@stanford.edu • debailey@stanford.edu
Abstract scholars and practitioners have noted and expressed con-
The bulk of our understanding of teams is based on traditional cern about one such challenge facing these teams: the
teams in which all members are collocated and communicate prevalence and severity of conflict. Justifying their con-
face to face. However, geographically distributed teams, whose cern, reports from the field indicate that conflict is dis-
members are not collocated and must often communicate via ruptive to performance in distributed teams.
technology, are growing in prevalence. Studies from the field Field studies further indicate that geographically dis-
are beginning to suggest that geographically distributed teams
tributed teams may experience conflict as a result of
operate differently and experience different outcomes than tra-
ditional teams. For example, empirical studies suggest that
two factors: The distance that separates team members
distributed teams experience high levels of conflict. These and their reliance on technology to communicate and
empirical studies offer rich and valuable descriptions of this work with one another. Distance and technology media-
conflict, but they do not systematically identify the mecha- tion have gone unexplored in existing models of conflict
nisms by which conflict is engendered in distributed teams. and performance in teams because their authors, for the
In this paper, we develop a theory-based explanation of how most part, assumed that team members were collocated
geographical distribution provokes team-level conflict. We do and communicating face to face. As a result, whether
so by considering the two characteristics that distinguish dis- these two factors spur new antecedents of conflict is not
tributed teams from traditional ones: Namely, we examine known, nor is it clear how conflict in distributed teams
how being distant from one’s team members and relying on might be reduced. In this paper, we consider the possi-
technology to mediate communication and collaborative work
bility that distance and technology mediation give rise
impacts team members. Our analysis identifies antecedents to
to conflict in distributed teams. We also examine how
conflict that are unique to distributed teams. We predict that
conflict of all types (task, affective, and process) will be detri- conflict might manifest itself over time as members of
mental to the performance of distributed teams, a result that is distributed teams learn how to work and communicate
contrary to much research on traditional teams. We also inves- across distances and use technology more effectively.
tigate conflict as a dynamic process to determine how teams Geographically distributed teams, whose members
might mitigate these negative impacts over time. reside in different cities, countries, or continents, share
(Distributed Work; Distributed Teams; Virtual Teams; Conflict) a number of properties commonly associated with tra-
ditionally conceived teams. Namely, they are groups
of individuals that work together interdependently to
accomplish a task, constitute distinct social entities, and
In response to a variety of factors that characterize jointly manage their team boundaries (Cohen and Bailey
the modern economy—including the global expansion 1997, Hackman 1987).
of the marketplace and the businesses that serve it, the Recent studies demonstrate the kinds of problems that
rise in mergers and acquisitions, and heightened compet- arise uniquely in the case of distributed teams and that
itive pressures to reduce the time to develop products— render questionable the comprehensiveness of past mod-
organizations increasingly are assembling teams whose els of group conflict and performance. For example,
members are drawn from sites far and near. Geograph- Armstrong and Cole (2002) reported that conflicts in
ically distributed teams face a number of unique chal- geographically distributed teams went unidentified and
lenges, including being coached from a distance, coping unaddressed longer than conflicts in collocated teams.
with the cost and stress of frequent travel, and dealing Beyond such empirical evidence, however, there is no
with repeated delays (Armstrong and Cole 2002). Many comprehensive theory-driven prediction and explanation
1047-7039/03/1406/0615 Organization Science © 2003 INFORMS
1526-5455 electronic ISSN Vol. 14, No. 6, November–December 2003, pp. 615–632PAMELA J. HINDS AND DIANE E. BAILEY Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams
for conflict in distributed teams. It is not known whether In our analysis, we specify that distributed teams dif-
conflict in distributed teams is triggered in a manner sim- fer from traditional teams in only two respects: members
ilar to that for traditional teams, nor is it clear whether separated by distance and forced to rely on technolo-
the impact of conflict on performance is the same as in gies to mediate their communication and collaborative
traditional teams. We investigate these issues by review- work. At first glance, this approach may appear to rule
ing findings from research on distance and technology out other traits that might distinguish a distributed team
mediation and blending those findings with research on from a collocated one. We contend that all other traits
conflict in traditional teams. We also consider evidence that may be associated with geographical distribution
from the growing number of empirical studies of dis- derive from distance or technology mediation, and we
tributed teams, which provide support for the proposi- consider them in our analysis of these two factors. For
tions that we build inductively. Our theoretical analysis example, some, but not all, distributed teams may expe-
is intended to help establish a roadmap for future empir-
rience incongruent temporal rhythms because members
ical work on distributed teams.
work in different time zones, but different time zones
Our analysis reveals that geographical distribution will
occur as a result of distance. Likewise, distributed teams
have a significant impact on each type of group conflict
proposed in recent organizational studies: task, affec- may have members from different cultures. Beyond the
tive, and process. Task conflict refers to disagreements impact of distance, distributed teams are no more or less
focused on work content. Affective conflict (sometimes likely than collocated teams to have members working
referred to as relationship or emotional conflict) refers at different times or to have a culturally diverse mem-
to team disagreements that are characterized by anger or bership. Moreover, the effects of technology mediation
hostility among group members. Process conflict refers are distinct from those of distance. Although distributed
to disagreements over the team’s approach to the task, its team members must rely on technologies because of
methods, and its group processes. Affective conflict has their distance, technology mediation has impacts even
been differentiated from task conflict (Eisenhardt et al. for teams that are collocated, and that at times choose to
1997, Pelled 1996, Pelled and Adler 1994) and from pro- rely heavily on technology rather than meet face to face
cess conflict (Jehn 1997) partly in an effort to explain (Mortensen and Hinds 2001). Among the many traits
contradictory findings regarding the impact of conflict that might distinguish geographically distributed teams
on team performance. Our analysis not only identifies from collocated ones, separation by distance and heavy
a number of new antecedents for each type of conflict reliance on mediating technologies are the only two fac-
in distributed teams, it also reveals that the impact of tors that hold true for all distributed teams.
group conflict will in some cases be different for dis- In the balance of the paper, we use the term “group”
tributed teams than for traditional, collocated teams. For to refer to ad hoc collections of individuals brought
example, task conflict has been found to be beneficial for together solely for the purpose of research, typically for
performance on many traditional teams, but we contend a short period, and with limited shared past or antici-
that it will not be so for their distributed counterparts. pated future (e.g., as in experimental studies). Although
Although we predict worse outcomes for distributed groups of this nature may not closely resemble orga-
teams, we acknowledge that they have certain advan- nizational teams, studies employing them have closely
tages over collocated teams. Distributed teams enable
examined the effects of technology mediation and have
firms to take advantage of expertise around the globe,
strong, consistent findings that are extremely relevant
to continue work around the clock, and to create closer
to the case of distributed teams. We reserve the term
relationships with far-flung customers. We argue that
these benefits will be diminished by the conflict engen- “team” for groups in organizations. We often abbrevi-
dered by distance and technology mediation, but we ate “geographically distributed teams” to simply “dis-
acknowledge that distributed teams may, at times, be the tributed teams,” but in doing so do not intend to include
only viable option for achieving organizational goals. other forms of distributed teams (e.g., organizationally
We therefore extend our analysis to consider conflict as distributed teams) whose experiences with conflict we
a dynamic rather than a static process to illustrate how do not consider in this paper. Finally, we treat as syn-
teams might mitigate the negative effects of distribution onymous the terms “traditional teams” and “collocated
over time. Although we contend that the negative effects teams” even though what is new about distributed teams
cannot be fully overcome, the preventative measures we is their increasing prevalence, not their existence. Col-
identify may facilitate the performance of distributed located teams represent how scholars have traditionally
teams when the realities of business dictate their use. conceived of teams.
616 Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 6, November–December 2003PAMELA J. HINDS AND DIANE E. BAILEY Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams
Distance and Conflict and conflict between distant sites. In short, dissimilar
In this section, we build on research demonstrating that paradigms, norms, and behavioral expectations are likely
distance has a detrimental impact on team members’ to result in more task and affective conflict.
shared context, familiarity, and friendship, all factors that In addition to disrupting shared understanding and
can heighten conflict in teams. We further argue that the development of common behavioral norms, occupy-
distance is likely to bring with it increased heterogene- ing different contexts may make it difficult for groups
ity, particularly cultural differences, that will reduce the to establish a shared temporal rhythm, or to become
similarity of team members. We describe how the neg- “entrained.” Ancona and Chong (1996) argued that
ative impact of distance on shared context, familiarity, groups establish a rhythm that serves as a powerful
friendship, and homogeneity will precipitate conflict for coordination mechanism. Isomorphic processes at the
distributed teams. group level may create similarity in temporal cycles as
team members signal to each other the pace and timing
Shared Context of activities (Ancona and Chong 1996). In distributed
Because they are distant from each other, members teams, signals among distant team members may be
of distributed teams may have difficulty establishing difficult to observe and interpret. Grinter et al. (1999)
a shared context. Different contexts may derive from found that members of distributed software develop-
and be revealed in different work and geographic envi- ment teams, regardless of the way they structured their
ronments, different technologies, and different cultures. work, were “constantly surprised” and confused about
Occupying different physical contexts makes it more the activities of their distant colleagues. In the absence of
difficult to make and interpret references to objects of triggers available to traditional teams, distributed teams
interest (Schober 1998) and to co-orient in a partic- have been observed to use face-to-face meetings and
ular context. For example, in a study of the use of other interactions to establish the rhythm of the team
new machines in a factory, Tyre and von Hippel (1997) (Maznevski and Chudoba 2000). Such difficulties in
observed that engineers and operators had trouble resolv- developing a shared temporal rhythm may make coor-
ing equipment problems over the phone because the dination in distant teams more fraught with conflict as
engineers needed to “see for themselves” the technology team members continually find their expectations of oth-
in context. In this way, distance fosters different per- ers unmet and their work processes “out of sync.” We
spectives on and information about the work in which posit that distant team members will experience more
distributed team members are engaged. In the absence incongruent temporal rhythms, which in turn will engen-
of a shared context, team members will have difficulty der unfavorable attributions (Cramton 2002) and process
developing mutual understanding (Fussell and Krauss conflict as confusion arises about who is doing (or has
1992, Clark and Brennan 1991). When team members done) what and when.
have different understandings of the task, task conflict is
likely to result (Jehn et al. 1997). Moreover, when team Familiarity
members’ understanding of the issues differs, conflict is Whereas shared context either exists or does not, famil-
difficult to resolve (Brehmer 1976). iarity can build over time when people are continually
Team members who lack a sense of a shared context copresent. Mere exposure to others powerfully affects
as a result of distance also are likely to adhere to differ- peoples’ feelings about one another (Zajonc 1968). As
ent norms. Offices, meetings rooms, cafeterias, and so compared to collocated teams, distributed team mem-
forth are associated with behavioral norms and mental bers tend to receive less passive information about their
schemas that affect team members’ behaviors and expec- distant colleagues. Armstrong and Cole (2002) reported
tations of one another (Kiesler and Cummings 2002). that distance blocked casual visual observation, conse-
Team members who do not share the same social set- quently inhibiting learning across sites. Similarly, prox-
ting may have different perceptions about what behav- imity increases the amount of informal interaction that
iors are appropriate, consequently holding one another can occur among team members. When people are col-
to different standards. Karnoe (1995), for example, located, the number of casual encounters, unplanned
observed that Danish and American workers used differ- conversations, and multipurpose interactions increases
ent paradigms for understanding problems and solutions. (Kraut et al. 2002). Such opportunities promote famil-
He attributed these differences to disparities in local rou- iarity as team members learn about the personalities,
tines and behavioral norms. Armstrong and Cole (2002) concerns, and work processes of others. Familiarity,
also observed that site-specific cultures and expecta- in turn, is associated with reduced conflict. Deutsch
tions acted as significant sources of misunderstandings (1969) reported that lack of familiarity increased conflict
Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 6, November–December 2003 617PAMELA J. HINDS AND DIANE E. BAILEY Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams
about roles and responsibilities. Similarly, Goodman and teams to be more heterogeneous and to experience more
Leyden (1991) found that not being familiar with the task and affective conflict.
work habits of other team members increased coor-
dination problems in the team. These studies suggest Overall Impact of Distance
that process conflict will be greater in distributed teams In sum, the social and psychological effects of distance
because their members have fewer opportunities to are likely to lead to more task and process conflict due to
become familiar with one another. challenges resulting from different perspectives, incon-
sistent norms, incongruent temporal rhythms, reduced
Friendship familiarity, and demographic heterogeneity. The effect
Proximity also is associated with friendship. Festinger of distance on affective conflict, however, is less imme-
et al. (1950) found that graduate students and their fam- diately apparent. On one hand, distance should lead
ilies who were randomly assigned to housing near one to more affective conflict as team members adhere to
another were more likely to become friends. Friendship inconsistent norms and attempt to work through demo-
is easier to establish when people casually encounter graphic differences. On the other hand, distance may
one another and interact spontaneously. Grinter et al. lessen affective conflict because team members do not
(1999) observed that distant team members had diffi- have a basis of friendship that would enable them to
culty building rapport and developing long-term rela- express affective conflict openly.
tionships without meeting face to face. Surprisingly, Although one might expect these opposing forces
when team members are friends, conflict, particularly to result in little ultimate impact on affective conflict,
affective conflict, is likely to be more prevalent. In an we argue that distance will heighten affective conflict.
experiment conducted with business students, Shah and Our reasoning lies in the relationship between task and
Jehn (1993) found that friend groups experienced more affective conflict. Task conflict can lead to increased
emotional conflict than groups of strangers working on affective conflict, especially in teams with low trust, per-
decision-making tasks. Murnighan and Conlon (1991) haps because low trust leads to more faulty attributions
also reported higher levels of conflict in string quartets regarding the source of the disagreement (Simons and
in which members were friends, but friend groups were Peterson 2000). When trust is missing, team members
better able to manage conflict successfully. Because are more likely to question others’ intentions and make
bonds of friendship are built on trust, expressing affec- attributions that do not adequately account for situa-
tive conflict may be perceived as safer and more readily tional factors. In distributed teams, trust can be frag-
ile and often fractures rapidly (Jarvenpaa and Leidner
accepted. These studies suggest that friendship increases
1999). Thus, although distance may not directly lead to
affective conflict in teams, but that these teams also are
affective conflict, increased task conflict will result in
better able to harness the conflict to improve task perfor-
more affective conflict for distributed teams. This argu-
mance. In sum, research on friendship suggests that dis-
ment is consistent with Cramton’s (2001) observations
tributed teams will experience less friendship and, thus,
that reduced information about team members’ actions
less affective conflict.
on distributed teams will lead to more harsh attributions
about their intentions. Overall, we propose that distance
Homogeneity
will engender conflict of all types for distributed teams.
Finally, distance is likely to reduce homogeneity among
team members by increasing demographic heterogeneity, Proposition 1. As a result of the different perspec-
particularly ethnic or racial heterogeneity. In a compar- tives and norms and reduced homogeneity that it occa-
ison of collocated and distributed product development sions, distance engenders task conflict in teams.
teams, Mortensen and Hinds (2001) reported that dis- Proposition 2. As a result of the different norms and
tributed teams were somewhat more culturally diverse temporal rhythms and reduced homogeneity that it occa-
than collocated teams. Such diversity has been shown sions, distance engenders affective conflict in teams,
to increase task and affective conflict (O’Reilly et al. despite the ameliorating effect of reduced friendship.
1997, Pelled 1996) because diversity prompts different
Proposition 3. As a result of the different temporal
perspectives on, and approaches to, work and fuels dif-
rhythms and reduced familiarity that it occasions, dis-
ferent attitudes, beliefs, and expectations. In their review,
tance engenders process conflict in teams.
Williams and O’Reilly (1998, p. 115) conclude that over
40 years of research has found that “diverse groups are Proposition 4. As a result of the reduced trust that
more likely to be less integrated, have less communi- it occasions, distance engenders a strong positive rela-
cation, and have more conflict.” We thus expect distant tionship between task conflict and affective conflict.
618 Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 6, November–December 2003PAMELA J. HINDS AND DIANE E. BAILEY Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams
Technology Mediation and Conflict the nature of group communication and group processes.
When distributed team members wish to communicate With the potential for a reduction in critical contextual
with one another or work together, they typically employ cues (e.g., status and gender), the social context may
technology. With limited opportunities for talking face become less visible, causing people to display more dis-
to face, they may hold discussions by phone or e-mail. inhibited behaviors, to become less aware that they are
Unable to carry a document to a colleague’s cubicle, engaged in social interaction, and to tend toward less
they may resort to electronic options, such as posting consensus (Sproull and Kiesler 1991, Siegel et al. 1986).
it on a Web page or storing it in an intranet-accessible As a result of depersonalized interactions, groups com-
directory. In this manner, technology mediates both com- municating via technology are less likely to exchange
munication and collaborative work for distributed teams. relational information than face-to-face groups (Siegel
Our reading of prior research suggests that the effects et al. 1986). Other studies show that mediated groups
of technology mediation can be categorized accord- are less cohesive than face-to-face groups (Straus and
ing to their impact on relational outcomes, information McGrath 1994), have lower group identity (Bouas and
transfer, and coordination. Although significant interest Arrow 1996), and exhibit more competitive behavior
has been paid to the relational outcomes of technology (Purdy et al. 2000). In short, mediated communication
mediation for distributed teams, we conclude that issues appears to negatively impact the ability of teams to build
of information transfer and coordination may have an and maintain strong interpersonal relationships.
equal, if not greater, bearing on group conflict. Differences among technologies in their ability to sup-
The bulk of prior research on technology mediation port communication have been explained by the media
examines use of communication technologies such as richness theory of Daft and Lengel (1984), which holds
computer-supported meeting systems, audio- and video- that media vary in the richness of the information trans-
conferencing, and e-mail. Unfortunately, relatively little mitted and that richer media are more effective at reduc-
work considers the use of information technologies such ing ambiguity and facilitating shared meaning (Daft
as shared electronic workspaces or version control soft- et al. 1987). Media richness theory suggests that dis-
ware that mediate collaborative work absent direct inter- tributed team members might lessen the negative effects
personal communication. Such technologies are equally of mediation by choosing richer media.
important for a distributed team’s functioning because The premises of social presence, reduced cues, and
team members spend only a portion of their time meet- media richness theories are challenged by studies that
ing or otherwise communicating with one another. A suggest that time can remedy the relational problems that
few technologies support both communication and infor- ensue from technology mediation. Many studies have
mation sharing and have been studied (see Mark et al. found that mediated groups work more slowly than face-
1999, Olson and Teasley 1996, Orlikowski 1992). As to-face groups (Walther and Burgoon 1992, Weisband
we assess the impact of technology mediation on group 1992). In a meta-analysis of such studies, Walther et al.
conflict, we consider research on the use of communica- (1994) found that when task time limits were imposed
tion technologies and, to the extent possible, information on these more slowly paced groups, the groups exhib-
technologies that support collaborative work. ited lower socioemotional communication. When lim-
its were expanded, relational outcomes often improved.
Relational Outcomes There are caveats, however, to the benefits of time.
For several decades, researchers have been concerned Time does not universally improve socioemotional com-
about the effect that interacting via technology has on munication because not all groups are equally willing
group member relations, including cohesiveness, com- or able to develop relational closeness (Walther 1994).
petition, group behaviors and attitudes, and group iden- Also, we suspect that as team membership changes over
tity. One of the earliest theories explaining the relational time, a team’s relational closeness must be reestablished
effects of technology mediation is social presence the- as reconfigured teams learn anew how to communicate
ory, which argues that interpersonal and group processes effectively via technology.
are negatively affected when people interact over media Social presence, reduced cues, and media richness
that reduce their feeling of “being there” with their com- theories also come under fire from scholars who decry
munication partners (Short et al. 1976). Social presence the technological determinism these theories represent.
theory predicts that this reduced social presence will Markus (1994a) noted two alternatives to technological
impair interpersonal relations. determinism, both of which turn attention to technology
Later work claims that mediation via technology users, their intentions, and the social context of technol-
reduces social cues and, because of their absence, alters ogy use rather than the material characteristics of the
Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 6, November–December 2003 619PAMELA J. HINDS AND DIANE E. BAILEY Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams technologies. The first alternative is the “rational-actor” Peterson (2000) report that task conflict is more likely perspective (Markus and Robey 1988, Kling 1980), to lead to affective conflict when voices are raised, sug- which contends that individuals make choices about gesting that distributed team members might opt for when and how to employ technologies. Research taking technologies like e-mail rather than the telephone for this perspective suggests that at times individuals desire discussions in which task conflict is expected. This is and pursue the distance afforded by technology. They consistent with empirical work suggesting that asyn- may choose, for example, to employ technology rather chronous communication mitigated negative interpreta- than talk face to face when interpersonal relationships tions of competitive behaviors, perhaps because these are strained (Markus 1994a). A second alternative to behaviors were obscured by the technology (Montoya- technological determinism is the emergent-process view Weiss et al. 2001). The emergent-process perspective, (Markus and Robey 1988, Pfeffer 1982), which holds which allows for unintended and unanticipated effects that the effects of technology use are emergent and thus of technology use, provides little reason to suspect that unpredictable. Given this, individuals may inadvertently technology mediation will not occasion conflict in dis- worsen the impact of mediation by assuming they can tributed teams. Lee (1994), for example, illustrated that prevent possible ill effects of technology use. e-mail use is socially embedded and that e-mail users Recent extensions of Giddens’ (1984) structuration add meaning to the messages that they receive. However, theory also challenge the technological deterministic the series of messages Lee examined also highlighted perspective by suggesting that people will engage in the potential for conflict, as Lee noted when describ- social practices that produce a particular structure of ing the “politically sensitive and managerially trouble- technology use, which may or may not be consistent some meaning” (p. 153) occasioned by the initial e-mail. with its intended use (Orlikowski 2000, DeSanctis and Finally, with regard to structuration theory, we concur Poole 1994, Barley 1986). Structuration theory implies with the conclusion of Kraut et al. (1998), that although that distributed teams may alter their use of existing users may modify technologies to suit their needs, tech- technologies in ways that will better serve the team. For nologies possess certain material limits that cannot be example, there is evidence that teams find ways to share overcome. As evidence, Markus (1994b) showed that extensive and detailed information over e-mail systems after the introduction of a new e-mail system, users (Hinds and Kiesler 1995, Lee 1994) and adapt technolo- felt that their interpersonal relationships were weakened gies to improve their ability to coordinate better (Kraut even though they regularly used the telephone to “keep et al. 1998). in touch.” Although structuration theory implies that No matter which theoretical perspective one takes, teams can limit the impact of technology on relational the anticipated effect of technology mediation on group outcomes, the material properties of technologies, com- conflict appears to be negative. The technological deter- bined with the challenges of distance, render unlikely ministic perspective suggests that distributed teams will the possibility that distributed teams will be able to mod- experience greater opportunities for affective conflict as ify the technology adequately and consistently enough a result of technology mediation. Feelings of not “being to match face-to-face communication. there” with one’s communication partners stand to pre- In short, technology mediation engenders negative vent distributed team members from sharing relational relational effects that we contend will precipitate affec- information that help teams to develop trust. Fewer tive conflict. These effects, including reduced cohesion inhibited behaviors and a lower tendency for consen- and group identity, increased competitiveness, reduced sus may prompt affective conflict as team members consensus, and less sharing of relational information, neglect to censor their comments and fail to accommo- contribute to lower trust, familiarity, and a sense of date their team members’ preferences. The rational-actor belonging on the team, and ultimately, we argue, induce perspective highlights the potential for agency among affective conflict. Because the effects we have consid- distributed team members, but it fails to significantly ered here concern group relations, we expect that their lessen the negative implications of mediation because impact is primarily on affective conflict, although task distributed team members, primarily lacking opportuni- and process conflict may be indirectly affected. ties for face-to-face discourse, can choose only among technologies when wishing to communicate with one Information Transfer another. The rational-actor perspective provides hope, Technology mediation also impacts information transfer however, that for short periods and for specific pur- among team members. Several problems related to infor- poses, choices that individuals make might deflect the mation sharing and seeking emerge from the literature, onset of affective conflict. For example, Simons and including uneven distribution of information, unevenly 620 Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 6, November–December 2003
PAMELA J. HINDS AND DIANE E. BAILEY Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams weighted information, and information that resists trans- rely on such teams as a means of assembling expertise mission. Each problem portends negative effects with from a variety of distant locations. respect to conflict. Technology mediation also can impact the weight that Uneven distribution can occur in at least two ways: various team members place on different pieces of infor- Team members may be purposely or accidentally mation. Cramton (2001) noted that despite whatever excluded from communications, or members may not importance a sender intended to attach to various top- reveal information that they uniquely hold. Work by ics within a single e-mail, team members often assigned Cramton (2001) highlights problems that can arise from different salience to the topics. As a result, some top- exclusion. In her study of distributed student teams, not ics never received the attention the sender desired for all members of the teams were copied on e-mails sent by them and at times were entirely overlooked, which led one team member or another. As a result of this limited to frustration and misunderstanding. distribution, some team members worked with incom- Finally, some information is not readily transmit- plete information while their colleagues assumed infor- ted via technology. Certainly some types of informa- mation had been universally shared. Conflict arose in tion, particularly those that can be digitized, can now the confusion that ensued. To complicate matters, team be more easily transmitted via technologies such as members attributed disagreements and miscommunica- file-transfer protocols and electronic workspaces, thus tions to individual-level factors rather than to the tech- increasing the amount of this information that can be nology or the situation, a practice that further fueled shared with distant teammates. However, many types interpersonal friction. of data continue to resist transmission via technology, The technologies upon which distributed teams rely with negative implications for conflict in distributed vary in the degree to which they promote inclusion teams. This is particularly true in the case of contex- and prevent exclusion. Audio- and videoconferencing, tual information that leads to shared awareness, such as as well as Web-based meeting systems, support inclu- who is in the office, what they are doing, what prob- sion by allowing distant members to “attend” meetings, lems they are confronting, and the moment-to-moment but they fail to prevent exclusion because they cannot social dynamics of the workplace. Weisband (2002) guarantee that all members will be notified of the meet- reported that although some mediated groups using a ing. Additionally, Web-based systems like NetMeeting Web-conferencing system and e-mail were successful in make it difficult for participants to keep track of who conveying contextual information, many were not. Dif- is remotely included in a meeting (Mark et al. 1999). ferences also exist in the degree to which technologies Cramton’s (2001) study reveals that technologies like facilitate the exchange of contextual information (Olson e-mail, despite having features that support inclusion, and Olson 2000, Clark and Brennan 1991). As com- may be more apt to facilitate exclusion of various team pared with the phone, which transmits little contextual members, either through sender intent (acting as a ratio- information beyond background noises, newly develop- nal actor) or mistake (in line with the emergent-process ing awareness technologies that display information such view of mediation). Her work points out the limita- as time zones, holidays, and current availability by type tions of a purely technological determinist perspective of medium for team members around the world are far by showing that even advanced features cannot ensure better at aiding shared awareness (Atkins et al. 2002). the uniform sharing of information. Even with these technologies, considerable contextual Uneven distribution of information also results when information, such as unplanned actions that occur away team members fail to share uniquely held information. from one’s desk, remains untransmitted. Information exchange is less complete and more biased Research on technology mediation’s information in mediated groups as compared with face-to-face ones, transfer effects suggests that distributed teams will be and mediated groups are less likely to uncover informa- prone to conflict. Uneven distribution of information tion uniquely held by one member (Hollingshead 1996). implies that team members will work and communicate Group members who rely on communication technolo- on the basis of different information. As a result, they gies find it more difficult to cue one another for the will be unlikely to recognize or resolve differences in information they need and to interpret the cues being perspectives, which have been shown to increase task conveyed by other group members (Hollingshead 1996), conflict in groups with weak relationships (Brehmer which may be why unique information is not shared. The 1976). Because technology impedes the ability of dis- problem of incomplete information sharing, especially tributed teams to collect contextual information, these of uniquely held information, may be particularly detri- different perspectives may become entrenched, increas- mental to distributed teams because organizations often ing the possibility of task conflict. Process conflict also Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 6, November–December 2003 621
PAMELA J. HINDS AND DIANE E. BAILEY Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams
is likely to arise when some members are excluded different information. Finally, the inability to coordinate
from messages. The progression of the team’s work, work may lead to frustration and misconceptions, which
seemingly purposeful and rational for members who in turn feed the potential for affective conflict.
receive all messages, may appear disjoint to those mem-
bers who do not. Members who lack complete infor-
Overall Impact of Technology Mediation
mation may call into question the team’s methods
and trajectory. Finally, affective conflict, already engen- In short, notwithstanding the different affordances of
dered by mediation’s relational effects, also may derive technologies and the ability of users to make choices
from information transfer effects. Uneven distribution of about how and when to use them, technology mediation
information, which can lead to frustration and misplaced has implications for conflict in distributed teams. Teams
blame, increases the potential for affective conflict. using the most advanced technologies experience diffi-
culties, as do teams that have a host of technologies avail-
Coordination able to them. Just because one technology is found to be
Coordination constitutes a third aspect of communica- superior to another does not mean it is absent negative
tion and collaborative work that is impaired by tech- outcomes; research to date reveals that problems arise
nology mediation. Purdy et al. (2000) reported that stu- from nearly every available technology. The coordination
dent groups working face to face collaborated more than problems we mention, for example, were uncovered with
distributed groups working over video, telephone, or respect to computer conferencing and support systems,
chat. Moreover, collaborative efforts were less likely to awareness technologies, e-mail, and shared workspaces.
be perceived in the mediated conditions. Field studies Moreover, advanced technologies are accompanied by
of distributed teams further suggest that technologies their own litany of usability problems that compound
designed to increase shared awareness may exacerbate the difficulties of mediation (see Fish et al. 1993, Gaver
coordination problems. For example, an awareness tech- et al. 1992). Success of groupware tools, for instance,
nology that allowed team members to see what docu- can be dependent on achieving a “critical mass” of users
ments other team members had read resulted in team and on users’ willingness to enter data into the system
members opting not to read what others had in an (Atkins et al. 2002). NetMeeting allows distant members
effort to avoid duplication (Espinosa et al. 2000). Con- to “attend” meetings, but Mark et al. (1999) found that
sequently, the team was limited in its ability to discuss
many members could not participate because they were
materials.
late in implementing the technology or had no one at their
Technology mediation also may induce time lags
own site to consult with about the technology. Although
and sequencing problems that further hamper coordina-
tion. Cramton (2001) found that distributed teams using technological advances may lessen a particular impact
online chat to hold discussions with members around the of mediation, it seems unlikely that they will ameliorate
globe experienced time lags that delayed some members’ all such impacts and rather likely that they will occasion
comments, rendering them “out of sync” with the larger new ones. On these grounds, we propose that technology
conversation. With the sequence of responses disrupted, mediation engenders conflict of all types in distributed
members may think their comments have been ignored, teams.
prompting frustration and irritation. Cramton’s (2001)
study also highlighted problems with asynchronous com- Proposition 5. As a result of the uneven informa-
munication. Disparities in when messages were sent, tion and difficulties in coordination that it occasions and
received, and responded to resulted in individuals work- its inability to transmit certain information, technology
ing with different information at different times. mediation engenders task conflict in teams.
The coordination problems imposed by technology
mediation may precipitate conflict of all types. Process Proposition 6. As a result of the negative relational
conflict is likely when the use of technologies renders effects, uneven information, unevenly weighted infor-
some team members “out of sync” and makes it diffi- mation, and difficulties in coordination that it occa-
cult to coordinate use of shared resources. Incompatibil- sions, technology mediation engenders affective conflict
ities in work processes may give rise to disagreements in teams.
about how work should get done. Coordination prob-
lems also may occasion task conflict, as can be expected Proposition 7. As a result of the uneven information
when individuals have not examined the same materials and difficulties in coordination that it occasions, tech-
as their colleagues or when they work on the basis of nology mediation engenders process conflict in teams.
622 Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 6, November–December 2003PAMELA J. HINDS AND DIANE E. BAILEY Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams
Summary of Conflict’s Antecedents the extent that it is expressed and resolved through the
We consolidate our propositions on the antecedents and process of building shared understanding. Sharing com-
outcomes of group conflict in distributed teams into plex information and coming to consensus on even fairly
models for task, affective, and process conflict, respec- mundane tasks is exceedingly difficult for teams sepa-
tively (see Figure 1). Perhaps the most striking result of rated by distance (Kraut et al. 2002). Communicating
our analysis is the number and variety of ways in which complex information via technology is more challeng-
distance and technology mediation engender each type ing because it takes longer (Straus and McGrath 1994),
of conflict, as depicted by the multiple paths in each is subject to delay (Kraut et al. 1992), and can require
model. more cognitive effort (Hinds 1999). Thus, distributed
team members may have more difficulty engaging in
collaborative interactions in which information must be
Conflict and Performance in shared and alternative perspectives understood. Over-
Distributed Teams all, we expect that distributed teams will have difficulty
Having established that distributed teams are apt to expe- resolving task conflict effectively and thereby will rarely
rience a significant amount of conflict, we turn our gain its benefits. This prediction is supported by find-
attention to the consequences of conflict with respect to ings from Mortensen and Hinds (2001), who reported
performance. Consistent with most of the existing lit- that task conflict was negatively related to performance
erature on conflict and performance, we focus on team in distributed product development teams.
effectiveness and efficiency in performing tasks. We
examine research on the impact of task, affective, and Proposition 8. Task conflict detracts from perfor-
process conflict on performance in traditional teams and mance in distributed teams.
consider the implications for distributed teams.
Affective Conflict
Task Conflict Researchers have reported that affective conflict detracts
In general, conflict is detrimental to team performance. from performance in student project teams (Jehn et al.
Task conflict, however, has been shown in many stud- 1997), R&D teams (Evan 1965), work teams and
ies to have a positive relationship with performance management teams (Jehn 1997), and top-management
(Eisenhardt et al. 1997, Jehn 1995), in part because teams (Eisenhardt et al. 1997, Amason 1996). Affec-
groups consider more alternatives and think through tive conflict often hampers performance as a result of
options more thoroughly (Pelled et al. 1999). Consider- the anxiety, hostility, and time and energy consumption
ing diverse opinions and alternative strategies enables a associated with emotional disagreements (Pelled et al.
group to avoid “groupthink” (Janis 1982) and arrive at 1999). Although a significant amount of research sug-
better solutions (Pelled et al. 1999). gests a negative relationship between affective conflict
Although many studies have observed a positive and performance, there remains some ambiguity. Jehn
effect, task conflict does not consistently lead to bet- (1995) observed that team members avoided other mem-
ter performance. Recent studies of student project teams bers with whom they did not get along. She posited that
(Jehn et al. 1997), for example, have reported a nega- their evasion nullified the relationship between affective
tive relationship between task conflict and performance. conflict and performance. Pelled et al. (1999) similarly
Lovelace et al. (2001) reported that norms of openness surmised that subjects in the project teams they stud-
and collaborative communication determined whether or ied found ways to cope with individuals with whom
not task conflict was beneficial. Recent research also they had affective conflicts, thereby preventing a nega-
has demonstrated that task conflict remains beneficial tive impact on performance. These studies suggest that
to teams only when it is not complicated by, and does it is not affective conflict itself, but the open expres-
not degenerate into, affective or process conflict (Jehn sion of affective conflict, that contributes to a negative
and Chatman 2000). Thus, although task conflict has conflict-performance relationship.
the potential to be positive, research suggests it must be We propose that affective conflict will continue to
managed carefully through open, collaborative commu- detract from performance in distributed teams for the
nication. same reasons that it often does in traditional teams. We
In contrast to what is found in traditional teams, we further note that in distributed teams, the opportunity
propose that the relationship between task conflict and to avoid affective conflict may be higher because team
performance will be consistently negative in distributed members do not encounter each other regularly through-
teams. We reason that task conflict is only beneficial to out the day—They can often go days, if not weeks,
Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 6, November–December 2003 623PAMELA J. HINDS AND DIANE E. BAILEY Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams Figure 1 Antecedents of Conflict on Distributed Teams 624 Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 6, November–December 2003
PAMELA J. HINDS AND DIANE E. BAILEY Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams
without “speaking” to a distant team member. Simi- or absence of these moderators, however, will be equally
larly, opportunities for open expression of affective con- likely to exacerbate conflict and its negative effects.
flict may be lower because mediating technologies pro- To build our model, we examine three aspects of
vide less-satisfying ways of discussing emotional topics. dynamic behavior with respect to conflict in distributed
These factors point toward less destructive affective con- teams: how teams may mitigate the negative effects of
flict in distributed teams. We argue, however, that mem- distance and technology mediation, factors that might
bers of distributed teams will be prone to more faulty moderate the effects of distance and technology medi-
and harsh attributions (Cramton 2002) and that such ation on conflict, and the role of conflict handling
attributions will counterbalance the benefits of avoid- over time. Because the literature related to the dynam-
ance. We therefore posit that affective conflict will have ics of group conflict is not as robust as that con-
an overall detrimental effect on performance in dis- cerning antecedents to conflict, our arguments here are
tributed teams. more speculative. Our dynamic model is represented in
Figure 2.
Proposition 9. Affective conflict detracts from per-
formance on distributed teams.
Preventative Measures
Teams may be able to mitigate the negative effects of
Process Conflict distance and use of mediating technologies in at least
The few studies that have examined the relationship five ways. Perhaps the most immediate way to dimin-
between process conflict and performance on traditional ish the negative effects of distance is to dislodge, if
teams suggest that process conflict, like affective con- only temporarily, distance itself; for example, by increas-
flict, generally has negative effects (Jehn and Mannix ing the frequency and length of face-to-face meetings
2001, Jehn 1997). Process conflict appears to detract (see Kraut et al. 1992). Because face-to-face interaction
from performance because effort is absorbed by dis- facilitates interpersonal relationships, more face-to-face
agreements, and inefficiencies result from confusion meetings should promote more familiarity and friend-
about resources and responsibilities (Jehn 1997). As with ship. At the extreme, organizations can collocate team
affective conflict, we argue that process conflict will members for a period of time, which should enhance
detract from performance in distributed teams for the shared context.
same reasons that it does on traditional teams. In fact, in Purposely conveying contextual information when
distributed teams, confusion about resources and respon- working remotely is another way that teams may mit-
sibilities may be even more detrimental and take more igate the ill effects of distance. Team members might
time to resolve because of divergent perspectives and make it a point to share information about vacation
communication challenges. This conclusion is consis- schedules, office politics, and so forth. They also might
tent with the observations made by Grinter et al. (1999), employ new awareness technologies to automate the pro-
who noted severe inefficiencies and errors in distributed cess of sharing some contextual information (see Atkins
teams attempting to coordinate their work in the face of et al. 2002). By making a special effort to convey con-
incompatible work processes. textual information, team members improve the extent
Proposition 10. Process conflict detracts from per- to which their teammates understand their context and
formance in distributed teams. increase opportunities to build familiarity and friendship.
A third way that teams and organizations can mitigate
the impact of distance, particularly on shared contexts, is
Conflict as a Dynamic Process by creating similar contexts at different sites. Although
With time, team members may get to know one another there are many subtle yet important contextual elements
better, learn how to work together more effectively, that cannot be standardized and others that, once made
and develop ways to best employ technology. Models similar, diverge due to local events and pressures, some
of group conflict that fail to take into account how standardization of work processes, tools, and systems
teams evolve over time run the risk of being incomplete, can help mitigate conflict in distributed teams. Dissim-
and possibly misleading. Thus, we complete our model ilar work processes create an occasion for conflict as
of conflict and performance on distributed teams by team members struggle to integrate across different tech-
adding dynamic components. In the interest of provid- nologies, understand nonstandard formats, and negoti-
ing insights into how teams might mitigate the problems ate differences. For example, if a software development
of distribution, we discuss the proposed moderators in team is using different compilers across two distant sites,
terms of their potential for positive effects. A reduction conflict will likely emerge because shared code cannot
Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 6, November–December 2003 625PAMELA J. HINDS AND DIANE E. BAILEY Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams
Figure 2 Dynamic Model of Conflict and Performance on Distributed Teams
- -
- -
be tested easily or adequately. In this case, using a sin- Longitudinal studies report that groups adapt communi-
gle compiler could ease coordination problems faced by cation technologies to good effect (Walther and Burgoon
the team. 1992, Chidambaram 1989), for example, altering the
Distributed teams also may dampen some of the neg- technology to improve coordination (Kraut et al. 1998).
ative effects of technology mediation. Over time, team Team members also choose technologies that they feel
members may adapt to the communication and informa- are more appropriate (Hinds and Kiesler 1995, Markus
tion technologies that they employ through training and 1994b) and use technology to enact social processes
use or by altering the technology to meet their needs. that better fit their needs (DeSanctis and Poole 1994,
As discussed earlier, structuration theory suggests that Orlikowski 2000). When team members elect to use
people will engage in social practices that produce a technologies that more effectively convey the affect and
particular structure of technology use (Orlikowski 2000, information demanded at the time, they may mitigate the
DeSanctis and Poole 1994, Barley 1986). These patterns effect of mediating technologies. For example, by choos-
of use may change over time, sometimes as a result of ing to make periodic telephone calls to keep in touch
user training. As evidence, Orlikowski (2000) observed rather than relying exclusively on e-mail, team members
that teams with higher levels of interest in Lotus Notes may facilitate better relational outcomes (see Markus
and higher levels of knowledge regarding its properties 1994a). As this happens, distributed teams should exhibit
and functionalities were more effective in using it. With- fewer immediate outcomes of distribution and, therefore,
out training and confidence in the technology, people less conflict of all types.
may avoid tools, thus severely limiting the flow of infor- We have argued that teams can use preventative mea-
mation among distant sites (Olson and Teasley 1996). In sures to mitigate many of the negative effects of dis-
short, as teams learn more about the technologies they tance and technology mediation as they meet face to
use, they will be better able to communicate, share infor- face, learn more about one another’s work environments,
mation, and coordinate. create similar contexts, and learn about and adapt the
We also have reason to suspect that, over time, dis- technologies on which they rely. These negative effects,
tributed teams may change the communication technolo- however, will never entirely disappear. Although dis-
gies they employ in ways that will better serve the team. tance can be suspended during face-to-face meetings,
626 Organization Science/Vol. 14, No. 6, November–December 2003You can also read
