2457Cooperation and ConflictStocktrek ImagesThinkstoc.docx

245
7Cooperation and Conflict
Stocktrek Images/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Explain the concept of social interdependence and how
cooperative or competitive frameworks arise.
• Analyze the relationship between cooperation and team
effectiveness.
• Describe the connection between social interdependence and
conflict, and the factors that influence one’s
orientation toward cooperative or competitive interaction.
• Distinguish between constructive and destructive dynamics in
competition and conflict.
• List key points for devising strategies to manage cooperation
and conflict.
• Define the role and primary objectives of a group facilitator.
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 245 8/19/16 9:33 AM
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for
resale or redistribution.

Introduction
Pretest
1. Conflict prevention is a central goal if teams are to
experience high-quality interpersonal
relations and communication.
2. In conflicts of interest, a win–lose outcome is the only
option.
3. Status differences can influence whether we decide to engage
in conflict or cooperation.
4. We are more likely to hold others personally accountable for
their actions but attribute
our own actions to other factors.
5. There is no such thing as cooperative competition.
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Anders works as a medical researcher for a large company that
develops new medical
devices for use in hospitals and doctors’ offices. The company
uses cross-functional teams
to see a product through from start to finish. Anders serves as
the leader of his team,
which is composed of a marketing specialist, several doctors,
and an engineer.
Recently, a conflict arose within the team that was related to the
development and mar-
keting of a new diabetes management device. The team was
divided on how best to design

and market the device. Raj, the team’s marketing specialist,
argued that the device should
be sleeker, look more fashionable, and pair with mobile devices
to target the growing
population of younger, tech-savvy patients who have diabetes.
Raj’s position was sup-
ported by a couple of doctors on the team who had seen an
increase in younger patients
in recent years. Yoanna, the team’s engineer, disagreed with
Raj’s design. She argued
that the proposed design would be more expensive, take longer
to develop, and be more
difficult for less tech-savvy individuals to use. She supported a
more basic design, with no
pairing ability and a bulkier body that would be less expensive
to produce. Yoanna’s posi-
tion was supported by the other doctors, who worried about
alienating users with a more
complicated product.
Tensions had begun to develop on either side. Raj accused
Yoanna and her followers of
putting costs before innovation, while Yoanna accused Raj and
his followers of discrimi-
nating against older patients for the sake of flashy bells and
whistles. The conflict had
brought the team to a standstill, and something needed to be
done.
Rather than forcing a solution by choosing a side, Anders
decided to make the entire team
responsible for solving the conflict. He began by facilitating the
team in collaboratively
establishing ground rules for handling the conflict. The team
decided on the following
rules:

1. Take action quickly when a behavior or decision causes
conflict. Do not wait several
days to say that something is bothering you; make the issue
known to the team and
start the resolution process.
2. Remove blame from the conflict. Frame issues in a way that
removes blame and does
not allow for anyone to be personally offended.
3. Accept the final resolution decided by the team.
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 246 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Section 7.1 The Dynamics of Working Together
Once the team decided on and agreed to abide by these ground
rules, Anders facilitated a
critical discussion on the value of the different design options.
Each side shared its con-
cerns while being mindful not to place blame: Raj’s side
worried about not innovating
quickly enough to meet the needs of a growing demographic,
while Yoanna’s side shared
concerns about turning off established users from more
effective products by making
them too difficult to use. By removing the blame from their
arguments, each side was able
to see the valid concern held by the other. Eventually, they
started brainstorming ways to

combine elements of their designs. In the end they came up with
and agreed to support
a design that partially satisfied everyone: a sleeker, fashionable
device that was easy to
operate but did not have a pairing capability.
Anders is proud of his team members for constructively
resolving the conflict. He hopes
that the ground rules they’ve established will empower them to
think, innovate, and col-
laborate more effectively in the future.
No group or team can function without cooperation—but that
doesn’t mean that con-
flict will not occur. As we know from our examination of
diversity and problem solving
in Chapters 4 and 5, conflict is highly likely in a cross-
functional design team like the
one showcased in our opening case study. In fact, conflict can
be a necessary and ben-
eficial element that enables a higher quality solution—as it did
here, by inspiring the
design of a diabetes management device that is effective and
appealing to both younger
and older generations of users. The key to keeping conflict
constructive is to frame it
within cooperative attitudes and behaviors. Building and
maintaining a cooperative
framework not only enables group and team work, it allows
potentially negative factors
such as competition and conflict to be channeled into
constructive, rather than destruc-
tive, dynamics. In this chapter, we define cooperation,
competition, and conflict, examine
the connection between them, and identify strategies to manage
each of these elements

within a group or team setting.
7.1 The Dynamics of Working Together
Cooperation—the process of working together and/or in support
of one another to achieve a
mutually beneficial outcome—is the underlying rationale for
any organization and is the pri-
mary element that keeps it functional and intact (Fieschi, 2003).
Cooperative work enhances
organizational productivity, achievement, and innovation, which
in turn secures the compa-
ny’s value in the eyes of customers and stakeholders and
promotes its continued existence
as a commercial entity (Dunne & Barnes, 2003; Johnson &
Johnson, 1989, 2003). By generat-
ing a rich and rewarding social environment, cooperative work
fosters employee integration
and commitment that encourages employees to work for the
success of the organization as a
whole. Cooperative work can integrate rival groups or
organizations and enable a mutually
beneficial partnership. Today many organizations are learning
that strategic alliances with
potential competitors can strengthen industry and improve their
ability to reach new mar-
kets (West, Tjosvold, & Smith, 2003).
Cooperation is the key to success in groups and teams. By
working cooperatively, individuals
learn to harmonize their own interests and needs with those of
others and of the collective.
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 247 8/19/16 9:33 AM

Group members perceive each person as contributing to a
mutually beneficial whole. They
consequently pool their resources and encourage and support
each other’s efforts. Integrat-
ing diverse ideas and viewpoints further enhances performance.
While some people perceive
cooperative work as undermining individuality, it actually
celebrates it. The integration of
each group member’s KSAs, unique thoughts, ideas, and
perspectives are what allow goup
and team work to outstrip individual efforts (Tjosvold, West, &
Smith, 2003). People also
gain a great deal on a personal level from cooperation. The
supportive environment that is
generated though cooperation satisfies the need for
belongingness and enhances one’s sense
of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and being valued by peers
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Korsgaard,
Jeong, Mahony, & Pitariu, 2008). In fact, studies have
consistently shown a strong relation-
ship between cooperation and psychological health and well-
being (Aubé, Rousseau, Mama,
& Morin, 2009; Tjosvold, Yan, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008).
Cooperation is not a given, however. The question of how and
why some individuals and
groups cooperate while others compete has been widely studied.
Muzafer Sherif ’s classic
Robbers Cave experiment (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, &
Sherif, 1961) is one of the earliest
and most famous studies on this topic. Conducted in the mid-

1950s at a Boy Scouts camp at
Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma, the study sought to
observe group dynamics between
22 “well-adjusted” American boys carefully selected for
similarity in age and background. The
experiment was set to function in three phases: first, in-group
formation; second, friction;
and third, integration. For the first phase, researchers brought
the boys to camp in two groups
that were kept separate from each other. Initially, neither group
knew of the other’s existence.
Each had time to form its own in-group identity. They both
chose names: One group called
itself the Rattlers and the other self-identified as the Eagles.
Gradually, each group was made
aware of the other.
The second phase—friction—tested the effects of in-group
loyalty by setting up a series of
competitions. In a matter of days, in-group loyalties led to the
development of rivalry between
the groups. Once the groups viewed each other as rivals,
intergroup friction emerged that was
notably hostile. For example, the two groups began calling each
other names and refused to
eat together. Conflict between the groups was so strong that the
experimenters ended this
phase of the study early to move on to the third phase—
integration—which tested strategies
for reducing intergroup friction.
Sherif designed various ways to generate cooperation between
the groups, particularly in
how they could come together to work on specific goal-oriented
tasks as one unit. Fostering
cooperation in this way was the most famous conclusion to

emerge from the Robbers Cave
studies. Researchers engineered a series of disasters that
required Rattlers and Eagles alike to
work cooperatively as one large group toward commonly valued
goals. For example, a water
pump broke, and then a truck broke down. The Rattlers and
Eagles had to work together to
retrieve the necessary parts in order to use the truck or repair
the water supply. By the end of
the third phase of the experiment, the groups had sufficiently
overcome the conflict that had
initially developed.
The Robbers Cave experiment was a pivotal study in seeing
firsthand how groups take shape,
how rivalries develop, and how conflict between groups can be
resolved through cooperative
efforts. Unfortunately, it also propagated two significant
fallacies: First, the idea that conflict
and cooperation are positive and negative forces that cannot
coexist; and second, that conflict
primarily happens between groups, while cooperation happens
within groups. Both coop-
eration and conflict can and do coexist within and between
groups, a fact proven by further
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 248 8/19/16 9:33 AM
research into social interdependence (Deutsch, 1973b, 2003;

Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005)
and the motivations underlying cooperative or competitive
attitudes and behaviors.
Social Interdependence: Cooperation or Competition
Social interdependence exists between two or more people when
they mutually affect each
other’s goals and outcomes (Johnson & Johnson, 2005). When
people associate with others,
their behaviors and actions can promote each other’s goals or
obstruct them. The motivation
to do one or the other depends on a person’s perception of the
relationship between his or
her own goals and those of others (Deutsch, 1949, 1973b, 2003).
Individuals are inclined
toward cooperative attitudes and behaviors when they think that
everyone’s goals are mutu-
ally beneficial and that one success will promote the other. A
relay race is one of the simplest
and clearest examples of this concept. As each person
successfully navigates a portion of the
course, they hand off their baton to the next runner on their
team, and so on, until the course
is complete. Each individual success enables the next, and the
completion of the course as a
whole represents a collective accomplishment—a win for all of
the team members. By con-
trast, a footrace measuring individual speed pits each runner
against the others, and only one
person can win the game.
Competition occurs when people work against each other (for
example, vying for resources
or an exclusive benefit) and defend their own right to an
individually beneficial outcome.
Competitive attitudes and behaviors arise when individuals

assume that their goals are in
opposition and that their own goal attainment conflicts with the
interests of others. When
only one party can win, the others must lose. Competition can
be direct, as when only one
individual out of several can attain a particular resource or goal.
Or it can be indirect, as when
goal-directed activities obstruct others’ actions—for example,
by monopolizing a shared
resource or engaging in an activity that conflicts with someone
else’s goal-directed activity.
An example of the latter would be when one team member sets
out materials for a special
presentation, and another member puts them away before the
presentation takes place.
Both cooperation and competition—and their associated
attitudes and behaviors—are rooted
in self-interest (Deutsch, 1949, 1973b, 2003). Through
cooperation, individuals achieve their
own goals by helping others achieve theirs. Consequently, they
are motivated to share infor-
mation and resources and help each other act effectively. By
contrast, people with competitive
interests and goals assume that they are better served when
others act ineffectively. People
in competition are therefore motivated to restrict or withhold
information and resources,
obstructing others’ effectiveness in order to increase their own
chances of success. Table 7.1
summarizes the basic differences between the cooperative and
competitive orientations.
Table 7.1: Comparing cooperation and competition
Orientation Goal association General behavior General attitude

Cooperation Positively related Support one another’s activities
and
progress
Win–win
Competition In opposition Obstruct others’ activities and prog-
ress while advancing one’s own
Win–lose
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 249 8/19/16 9:33 AM
What happens if people perceive their own individual goals as
unrelated to those of others?
If they determine that the actions and behaviors of others have
no effect on their own goals?
In that case, they see themselves as socially independent and act
without regard for the needs
of others. They are relatively indifferent to the effectiveness or
ineffectiveness of others in
pursuing their goals. They are not socially interdependent, they
will neither cooperate nor
compete, and they will not function as part of a group or team.
The key takeaways for facilitating cooperation and managing
competition are:

• In perceiving a relationship between goals, both cooperation
and competition bring
people closer together than having no relationship at all.
• Both cooperation and competition are rooted in self-interest
and can therefore be
manipulated by this relationship.
• Cooperation is fostered by the perception of positively related
goals and mutually
beneficial activities.
Next, we examine the connection between cooperation and team
effectiveness.
The Role of Cooperation in Team Effectiveness
Of course, no group or team can function well without
maintaining cooperative attitudes and
behaviors. Beyond this, however, the quality of cooperation
between team members during
performance has a direct impact on team effectiveness because
of its relationship to the pri-
mary components by which team effectiveness is measured:
productivity, process improve-
ment, and viability (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Agarwal, 2003;
Korsgaard et al., 2003).
Productivity reflects team efficiency and effectiveness in
converting inputs into outputs,
in terms of both quantity and quality (Caya et al., 2013; Adler
& Clark, 1991). Productivity
inputs encompass all of the things that go into team
performance, including resources, mem-
ber effort, and processing time. Outputs represent the
performance outcome—the product
of the team’s work. Cooperation is what working together is all

about and is at the heart of
any productive group or team effort. The collaborative and
supportive nature of team effort
also makes teams a natural setting for learning and growth,
which are ultimately expressed
as process improvement.
Process improvement reflects the extent to which team members
refine task-related pro-
cesses and develop member KSAs to enhance team performance
and outcomes (Kirkman,
Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004). Process improvement can have
far-reaching effects, as
enhanced knowledge, practices, and procedures spread from the
team to other groups within
the organization and contribute to growth and the development
of organizational process
and culture (Hackman & Wagemen, 1995; Rousseau & Aubé,
2010). For example, the use of
online productivity tools such as e-mail and Google Docs for
task and project management is
a common organizational practice that originated in virtual
teams. The development of mem-
ber KSAs also has lasting benefits, as former team members
continue to apply themselves to
other tasks and activities within the organization.
Improvement implies the proactive removal of deficiencies or
defects in group process that
are identified and addressed through a process of learning and
growth. Teams can be power-
ful vehicles for both of these elements. Time-sensitive
performance encourages members to
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 250 8/19/16 9:33 AM

rapidly identify problems, developmental needs, and skill gaps,
while the cooperative frame-
work and teamwork values provide motivation and support for
members who are address-
ing those issues (Katzenbach & Smith, 2001. Member
development involves the personal
enrichment and growth that occur as a natural by-product of
team process improvement. All
aspects of improvement depend on the attitudes and behaviors
that are characteristic of the
cooperative orientation, and on activities such as giving and
receiving constructive feedback,
sharing knowledge, openly discussing errors, engaging in
collaborative problem solving, and
teaching or modeling skills to others.
The quality of process improvement that occurs during
teamwork also effects the team’s
viability. Viability refers to the team’s ability to perform
collaboratively, the extent to which
performance enhances members’ satisfaction with the team, and
members’ willingness to
work together in the future (Caya et al., 2013). Viability
reflects team members’ ability to col-
lectively deal with issues that impair team cohesion (Barrick et
al., 1998). Though viability
can be viewed from many perspectives, it most often
encompasses members’ self-reported
sense of group climate, team efficacy, and the quality of

competition and conflict within the
team (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). Group climate
reflects the standard quality
and tone of interactions within the group. It is generated over
time as the group develops both
task- and relationship-oriented norms. It serves as a significant
indicator of whether major
structural elements (communication, member interrelations, and
leadership and responsi-
bility roles) are functioning so as to facilitate group
performance. Group climate can be cat-
egorized as positive or negative, depending on the degree of
cooperation, trust, efficacy, and
cohesiveness expressed within the group. A positive group
climate is supported by coopera-
tive practices that foster participation, inclusion, and member
development, such as collab-
orative construction of performance goals, modeling effective
communication and listening
skills, balancing individual and collective acknowledgement and
praise, and giving and receiv-
ing constructive feedback. This is one reason why a climate of
cooperation is so desirable.
A climate of cooperation is also a well-known support for team
efficacy (Alper et al., 2000;
Lester et al., 2002). Efficacy levels influence team motivation
and performance across the
board, significantly impacting output and effort on collective
endeavors and the tendency to
either persevere or give up when faced with apparent adversity,
opposition, or failure (Ban-
dura, 1997). As we’ll see in the coming sections, conflict and
competition can be either posi-
tive or negative for group interaction, and it is the degree to
which these elements are embed-

ded within cooperation that largely determines their impact on
group and team performance.
Before we get to that, however, let’s talk about the expectations
people have regarding conflict
and how changing these can help us redefine the role that
conflict plays in group and team
work.
Group Conflict: Redefining Our Expectations
Conflict is a process of argumentation, disruptive behavior, and
discord that occurs due
to perceived incompatibilities with activities, personalities,
interests, or viewpoints (Jehn,
1995; Deutsch, 2003). Conflict is often viewed as the antithesis
of cooperation, yet it is both
inevitable and normal (Brown & Kozlowski, 2000; Weiss &
Hughes, 2005). Groups, teams, and
organizations are characterized by the coexistence of divergent
forces (such as disagreement,
competition, and distrust) that push groups apart and convergent
forces (such as cohesive-
ness, team efficacy, and morale) that pull them back together
(Sheremata, 2000).
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 251 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Working to develop quality interpersonal relations and
communication between team mem-
bers will not “save” a group from conflict—nor should they.

Many of the benefits we find
in collaboration arise from disagreements sparked by
differences in knowledge, viewpoints,
experience, functional competencies, and strategic focus (Weiss
& Hughes, 2005). Conflict—
whether within teams or across organizational boundaries—is
the crucible from which great
innovation, problem solving, and decision making emerge, but
careful management of it is
key. Hold the mix over the flame too long, and all those
benefits could evaporate.
Organizations spend inordinate amounts of financial and human
resources working out strat-
egies and initiatives to improve internal cooperation—these
include restructuring and reen-
gineering business processes and offering cross-unit incentives
and teamwork training. Yet
all of this work has a limited impact if employees are not taught
how to constructively manage
and resolve conflict (Weiss & Hughes, 2005). Anyone interested
in furthering cooperation and
teamwork should be ready and able to manage conflict.
What does managing conflict entail? In a nutshell, it involves
the following:
• Facilitating constructive conflict
• Steering potentially destructive conflict toward constructive
outlets
• Mitigating the negative effects of dysfunctional conflict
• Resolving both positive and negative conflict
Before we take on the task of managing conflict, however, there
are a few things to consider.
Think of the next section as a primer for managing conflict, as

it addresses some foundational
concepts we’ll need to absorb before examining actual
strategies and techniques.
Business Applications: Are We Stamping Out Conflict or
Cooperation?
Have you ever heard the old expression “Don’t throw the baby
out with the bath water”? Tra-
ditional views on conflict may encourage us to do just that.
Organizational policies and norms
that discourage conflict and treat it as a wholly undesirable
phenomenon can foster a fear of
conflict that hampers employees’ ability to communicate
problems, raise issues, and effec-
tively collaborate. In her 2012 TEDtalk, Dare to Disagree, five-
time CEO turned author Marga-
ret Heffernan discusses how avoiding conflict can cripple
progress in teams and organizations.
Watch Heffernan’s TEDtalk online and take note of how the
relationships between team mem-
bers can change how conflict is enacted and perceived.
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. Did the story of the relationship between Dr. Alice Stewart
and statistician George Neil
change your view of conflict? Describe how the conflict was
useful to Stewart’s research.
What does this imply about the relationship between conflict
and cooperation?
2. Have you ever heard of a whistle-blower? If so, what was
your perception of his or her
actions? If you have ever served as or been influenced by a
whistle-blower, describe the

effects that followed your (or the whistle-blower’s) actions and
how these were per-
ceived. If you have never been a whistle-blower, what issues do
you think might compel
you to serve as one?
cog81769_07_c07_245-280.indd 252 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Section 7.2 Foundations for Managing Conflict
7.2 Foundations for Managing Conflict
Managing conflict requires the skillful application of knowledge
and experience (de Janasz et
al., 2002). Before we can achieve this, there are a few
foundational concepts to consider. To
effectively navigate and manage conflict, it is important to
understand the following:
• The relationship between social interdependence and conflict
• The difference between constructive and destructive dynamics
• The conditions that produce high levels of conflict, and how it
is likely to be expressed
The following sections address each of these in turn. We begin
by examining the connections
between social interdependence and conflict.
Social Interdependence and Conflict
Competition and conflict go hand in hand. The vary nature of
competition involves opposing
interest or goals that lead to the incompatibilities that define the

process of conflict. This
relationship has fostered the common misperception that
competition and conflict are the
same thing—and that neither can coexist with cooperation. As
we will see in this section,
both of these statements are untrue. Conflict can occur in either
a cooperative or competitive
context—and in fact, it often exists in a mixture of both.
When people experience conflict in a competitive context, it
reflects a real or perceived incom-
patibility of goals. However, conflict can also arise when goals
are compatible—and positively
related (Tjosvold, 2006). Consider, for example, members of a
marketing team who disagree
on the best way to increase sales, or members of a management
team who are debating the
merits of various candidates for promotion. In each case, the
team members have a common
goal (to increase sales or choose the best candidate for
promotion). However, they can also
have individual interests that may or may not align with those
of their fellow team mem-
bers. Each person on the sales team, for example, has a vested
interest in being perceived as
capable, making good contributions, and being valuable to the
team. The management team
members may also have specific interests tied to one or more of
the candidates for promotion
that can affect their preference and actions during the debate.
The key to effectively managing and resolving conflict is not to
do away with competition or
conflict; rather, it is to steer the balance between cooperation
and competition toward the
cooperative end of the spectrum. As we outlined in the first

section, the conditions surround-
ing our social interdependence dictate our initial tendency to
engage in either cooperative
or competitive attitudes and behaviors. However, there are other
factors that influence the
strength of that response, as well as our continuing allegiance to
a cooperative or competitive
orientation. Let’s examine these now.
Initial Orientation
Team members’ initial attitudes and behaviors tend to set the …
281
8Technology and Teamwork
Jon Feingersh/Blend Images/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Identify the key elements and events driving the evolution of
netcentric organizations and virtual teams.
• Describe ways in which netcentricity has changed business
processes by redefining key elements and
boundaries within the traditional system.
• Differentiate between social networking and social media, and
identify ways in which they improve
organizational functioning.
• Assess the potential benefits of organizational marketing
strategies that utilize social media.

• Explain the concept of virtuality in teams and the key areas in
which increased virtuality impacts team
dynamics.
• Identify the five contexts that are commonly misaligned in
virtual teams and explain their significance to
team interaction.
• Describe the three basic functions of digital communications
technologies within virtual teams and identify
tools that accomplish these.
• Identify key problem areas in virtual team communications
and the strategies for overcoming them.
cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 281 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Introduction
Pretest
1. Virtual teams emerged outside of any formal organizational
strategy, a natural product
of the netcentric evolution.
2. Social networking platforms and social media are the same
thing.
3. Online communities facilitate organizational knowledge
sharing and employee

socialization.
4. Virtual teams now handle many of the tasks once performed
by traditional teams.
5. Teleconferencing is a social media marketing tool.
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Zari is the leader of a recently formed team that is composed of
members from the United
States, Germany, and India. Zari is an experienced team leader,
but she has never led a
virtual team that spans three continents. While she is a little
unsure of herself in this new
situation, she decides to proceed as if this were a regular,
colocated team—and sets the
first team meeting.
The seven members of this international team have never met
face-to-face.
Communications between them have taken place primarily via
e-mail, with the occasional
phone call. Zari decides to use a teleconference format for their
first team meeting and is
met with her first challenge as leader of virtual team—managing
several different time
zones. Finally, the meeting is scheduled after finding a time that
works for everyone. Zari
takes the lead during the call. She formally introduces members,
outlines the team’s goals,
and discusses workflow and deadlines.
While Zari accomplishes her goals for the call and ultimately
views it as successful, she
feels something was missing from the team’s interaction. After
reflecting on initial team

meetings she has led in the past, Zari concludes that she’s
missing the feeling that her
team members have begun to gel. Just hearing each other’s
voices does not seem to have
been enough for them to get a real sense of each other—or of
being part of a team. With
this in mind, Zari schedules their next meeting and plans to use
Skype so members can see
each other, too. Her hope is that by seeing as well as hearing
one another, members will
be able to develop the sense of “togetherness” in action and
purpose that Zari associates
with working in teams.
Several weeks pass between the initial phone meeting and the
team’s first Skype
meeting. During that time, members work individually toward
their goals and continue
to communicate, but mainly through e-mail. As team leader,
Zari is included on many
of these communications and begins to notice a few things.
First, members tend to lack
cohesion, as their communications are strictly professional and
formal. No informal
communication takes place, and members are not bonding with
each other in ways that
will help them achieve their shared goals. Second, some team
members’ competitive
nature is becoming evident to Zari. This is concerning because
competition goes against
the core of teamwork and can lead some members to
micromanage others, instead of
trusting them to do their work.
cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 282 8/19/16 9:33 AM

Introduction
As Zari begins the Skype meeting, she notices that the team
members from India have not
yet joined. She decides to wait a few minutes, using this time to
facilitate some informal
communication between herself and the members who are
present. In an attempt to build
familiarity, she addresses members by their first names, telling
them all how glad she
is to finally put faces to names and voices. Unfortunately, the
conversation is awkward
and stilted. The members from Germany seem irritated by the
delay and uncomfortable
with Zari’s attempts at familiarity, so after several minutes she
moves forward with the
meeting, despite the absence of the members from India.
When the meeting ends, Zari concludes that it was unsuccessful;
she realizes that the
team members have already established a pattern of working as
individual satellites. A
little face time now is not enough to break this habit. To bring
them back together, Zari
needs to take steps to build team cohesion before the next
meeting. Zari is also aware that
cultural factors are playing a role in impeding cohesion. Before
she can begin improving
cohesiveness within the team, she must understand and address
the cultural factors at
play. After a little research into business practices and cultural

norms in Germany and
India, Zari identifies two areas that are causing friction:
punctuality and formality in
addressing individuals. Each culture—India, Germany, and the
United States—have
different perspectives on these matters, and Zari realizes that
she will need to address the
differences before she can proceed with building cohesion.
After addressing cultural norms, one of the first steps for
developing cohesion will
be to enlist all team members in the creation of a road map to
complete their goals.
Zari believes that if they help map out the steps to success, it
will foster cohesion and
provide opportunity for informal interactions. Zari also plans to
encourage face-to-face
communication by making Skype or FaceTime one of the team’s
main communication
methods. While it won’t surpass e-mail as the primary method
of communication, getting
face time with each other will help the team get to know one
another. Zari plans to both
suggest this and model this behavior to her team. She will also
need to model social
exchanges. She hopes that with enough encouragement on her
part, the rest of the team
members will take the initiative to spark social interactions that
will bond them together
in critical ways.
After several months of modeling the behavior she wants to see
from her team, members
convene for another Skype meeting to address progress toward
their goals. Zari finds
this meeting to be much more in line with her expectations for a

colocated team meeting.
She feels that her encouragement played a key part in helping
her team members build
cohesion despite the physical distance between them.
The past 50 years have seen the birth and death of many
culture-shifting technolo-
gies. Buying music on CDs, browsing for books in the aisles of
a bookstore, and being
discouraged from using social media at work: All of these real-
life phenomenon are rap-
idly fading into pop culture history. Communication and
information technologies have
given birth to the information economy, and from those
foundations arose a virtual
reality wherein many of us live, play, learn, and work. This
chapter describes the rise of
virtual organizations, work spaces, and teams. It examines the
major forces behind the
evolution of online business and work practices, such as the
global shifts in informa-
tion technologies, the growing complexity of organizational
products and needs, and
cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 283 8/19/16 9:33 AM
Section 8.1 Netcentricity: Cultural Evolution in Action
the successful experimentation and implementation of
alternative workplace strate-
gies. The chapter also examines the major differences between

traditional and virtual
team dynamics, problematic issues specific to virtual teamwork,
and strategies to
address these problems. Let’s begin by taking a look at the
origins of online work.
8.1 Netcentricity: Cultural Evolution in Action
Netcentricity refers to the ability of digital networks to
instantaneously and globally
distribute information (University of Maryland, 1999).
Netcentricity and the emergence of an
information-based global marketplace have generated an
increasingly complex, fast-paced,
all-access business environment in which traditional marketing
territories and product
monopolies have been obliterated and classic sales and service
strategies made obsolete.
Beginning in the 1990s, the shift toward netcentricity resulted
in widespread hypercompetition
and rivalry among companies as they struggled to assimilate the
dynamics of the evolving
marketplace (D’Aveni, 1995). As the decade progressed, top
management recognized that the
increasingly complex, dynamic working environment and
production needs often demanded
more KSAs than were readily available within a single
organization (Agarwal, 2003).
Emerging communication technologies helped companies
address their changing needs
by enabling business practices and new methods of working that
were freed from the
traditional boundaries of place, space, and use (Agarwal, 2003;
Vos, Van Meel, & Dijcks,
1999). The launching of the Internet—along with its near
instantaneous ability to connect,

share information, and communicate problems and needs—
revolutionized the marketplace.
Organizations began to incorporate IT and network-based
processes and work practices.
These new netcentric organizations (Hazari, 2002; Kharitonov,
2011) evolved from
alternative workplace strategies adopted by companies as they
worked to keep pace with this
cultural evolution.
Alternative Workplace Strategies
The use of technology to redefine organizational boundaries
originally began as a campaign to
reduce operating costs. In the 1990s large corporations like
AT&T and IBM began pioneering
alternative workplace strategies based on flexible and
nontraditional working methods
and practices (Gibson, 2003; Apgar, 1998). These strategies
looked for ways to use the new
technologies and characteristics of the changing business world.
Since more employees were
traveling, for example, companies experimented with shared
desks and office space for people
on different work and travel schedules. Setting up satellite
offices—smaller workplaces located
closer to employees’ homes, and in areas where real estate is
comparatively inexpensive—
was another strategy aimed at reducing costs. As
communication technology opened up the
realm of teleconferencing, AT&T began working on a strategy
that would take advantage of
these growing technologies by asking employees to work from
their homes, which would save
millions of dollars.
In 1994 more than 30,000 AT&T employees from top

management to line operators began
an experiment in remote work, referred to at the time as
telecommuting. The experiment
proved successful, and by 1998 the resulting consolidation and
elimination of office space
and related overhead costs freed up roughly $550 million
(Apgar, 1998). While AT&T experi-
mented with telecommuting across its organization, IBM
implemented a strategy that set up
cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 284 8/19/16 9:33 AM
complete business units to work remotely with its North
American sales and service organi-
zation. This strategy was also a success, and by 1997 IBM had
reduced expenditures by 42%,
saving the company billions of dollars per year (Apgar, 1998).
As communication and information technologies grew in scope
and ability throughout the
1990s, alternative workplace strategies evolved beyond a simple
conservation of space
and resources to encompass real-time, multiperson data sharing
and virtual collaboration.
The U.S.-based Dow Chemical Company began its global
expansion in 1996 by creating an
international network of virtual teams. However, virtual teams
at that time had to work much
harder than they do today to organize real-time communications

and data sharing. They met
via phone conference and shared documents, which they
individually downloaded from an
online server. Each team member was then responsible for
recording any changes to the
content of these documents over the course of their meeting.
In 1997 the unwieldiness of this technique, along with the high
probability of personal error,
prompted Dow Chemical to adopt Microsoft’s NetMeeting, one
of the earliest commercially
available Internet-based videoconferencing tools. NetMeeting
allowed Dow Chemical’s global
virtual teams to conference, chat, data share, and view and make
collaborative changes to the
same document in real time. Dow Chemical tech specialist
Harold Bennett noted that the new
software dramatically increased effective collaboration, mainly
by facilitating these real-time
interactions. He noted that the ability to simultaneously view
and edit the same information,
see changes in progress, and give immediate suggestions or
feedback empowered team
members to resolve issues on the spot, rather than through long
and arduous phone and
e-mail exchanges (Microsoft Corporation, 1998).
Organizations that embraced netcentricity and virtual teamwork
were rewarded with
substantial benefits. Virtual work spaces increased
organizational flexibility and market
access and allowed exploitation of geographically limited assets
or characteristics such as
specialized facilities, natural resources, or relatively low labor
costs (Mowshowitz, 1994;
Carmel & Agarwal, 2000). Today netcentric organizations

leverage their connectivity to
reduce processing time and resource cost in both internal and
external transactions (Hazari,
2002). For example, online product ordering takes a fraction of
the time previously needed—
and customers do the work themselves. Management decisions
are aided by increased
connectivity as well, as lag times between gathering information
and communicating
viewpoints and decision preferences from distributed employees
have been nearly eliminated.
Smaller businesses that were previously restricted to local
customer bases and suppliers due
to high operating costs now have entry into the global
marketplace. As business processes
and practices become increasingly netcentric, traditional
organizational boundaries are
being redefined.
Redefining Traditional Boundaries
Most contemporary organizations operate under some degree of
netcentricity. Cooperation
and collaboration across organizational and geographical
boundaries is common. Employ-
ees are increasingly likely to work with, manage, or be managed
by groups and individuals
who are spatially distributed, separated by time zones or
asynchronous project input, and
functionally and/or culturally diverse (DeSantis & Monge,
1999). Some organizations, such
as Netflix, Amazon, and eBay, operate almost entirely online.
Others augment their brick-and-
mortar operations with network-based work practices that
utilize the online environment for
internal and external information and resource sharing,
contacting customers and suppliers,

cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 285 8/19/16 9:33 AM
and handling customer-related interfacing such as customer
service, product descriptions or
viewing galleries, and sales. Ikea is good example of an
augmented brick-and-mortar business.
Its stores are designed and set up entirely around customer
walking and browsing: Custom-
ers enter the store via an escalator and are directed along a
marked path through each level
of the store, ending their journey at the ground floor cash
registers for checkout. Despite this
reliance on the brick-and-mortar format, Ikea also maintains a
detailed commercial website
that allows customers to browse and shop for home delivery,
check in-store product avail-
ability, and address customer service issues.
Companies like Netflix, Amazon, eBay, and Ikea all use
netcentricity to their advantage, enabling
their business processes and interactions to transcend traditional
boundaries of space, time,
location, and culture (DeSantis, Staudenmayer, & Wong, 1999).
However, the information and
technology age has had another profound impact on global
business and society: It has for-
mally established the concept of nonmaterial products. Today
organizations like Facebook,

LinkedIn, and Wikipedia offer information and social
connection, profiting through indirect
commercial methods rather than direct transactions for material
goods. Wikipedia survives on
yearly donation drives to offer free access to a wide range of
knowledge. Facebook and Linke-
dIn offer free membership access in exchange for exposure to
targeted advertisements and
marketing campaigns, all of which generate revenue. LinkedIn
also profits by selling access to
enhanced brand, talent acquisition, and search features for
corporate recruiters (Potter, 2015).
The intersection of social media and organizational strategy has
blurred the line between private
and professional social interactions, redefining this traditional
boundary as well. Netcentricity
has had a profound effect on contemporary lifestyle and culture,
irrevocably changing the way
we interact and exchange value. These societal changes are
reflected in the corresponding evolu-
tion of organizational knowledge sharing and structure toward
dependence on social network-
ing and online communities.
Conceptualizing Social Networks
A social network is essentially a web of connectivity between
individuals and groups.
Social networks are not groups and are distinct from other
forms of association. Unlike
aggregates, social networks tend to exist more in the mind than
within a concrete place
and time. Likewise, though social networks require that their
members have some point of
relativity to provide the initial connection point (for example, a
supplier and a distributor

meet and share contact information at a conference or through a
social networking site),
they do not require all members to share the same point of
relativity. For example, while
social categories are defined by members who have at least one
characteristic shared by
all (such as gender or profession), social networks encompass
members who may have
Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images Lionel
Bonaventure/AFP/Getty ImagesDavid McNew/Getty Images
Amazon, Facebook, and Wikipedia are powerful netcentric
organizations that are shaping
lifestyle and culture in the 21st century.
cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 286 8/19/16 9:34 AM
no point of relativity other than their own contact with an
existing member. In this way,
social networks represent both direct and indirect connections
between people who may
or may not ever interact. The idea that our social contacts can
link us to people we have
never met or interacted with inspired the concept of “six
degrees of separation,” the theory
that a relation between any two people in the world can be
demonstrated with six or fewer
social connections (Newman, Barabási, & Watts, 2006; Dodds,

Muhamad, & Watts, 2003).
Social networks form a web of personal connections and
communications that enable knowl-
edge and information to be disseminated between individuals
and groups (Allen, James, &
Gamlen, 2007; Cross, Borgatti, & Parker, 2002). They cross
both organizational and geo-
graphic boundaries and allow for organizational socialization,
learning and innovation, as
well as day-to-day business operations (Cross & Parker, 2004).
Before the advent of social
networking platforms like Facebook and LinkedIn, social
networking referred to the practice
of leveraging existing social connections to build and expand
personal and professional con-
tacts and influence. While contemporary social networking
includes this old definition, it
has also grown to encompass active participation within and
development of online communi-
ties through direct and indirect social connections and
interactions. Social networking activi-
ties include creating and perusing online profiles, activity and
messages boards, and video
and blog posts, as well as using widgets and unique interaction
features such as “tweeting” on
Twitter, “friending” and “poking” people on Facebook, or high-
fiving someone on Hi5, a popu-
lar Central American social networking platform.
Concepts in Action: The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon
In a 1994 interview, actor Kevin Bacon is reputed to have
claimed that he had worked with
almost every actor in Hollywood, or someone who had worked
with them (Perman, 2012).
Later that same year, three college students in Reading,

Pennsylvania, decided to put that
statement to the test after watching a run of movies in which
Bacon had appeared. They came
up with a party game based on the six degrees of separation
theory that proposes that no two
people in the world are separated by more than six social
connections (Newman et al., 2006;
Dodds et al., 2003). The game, which came to be known as the
Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon,
became an instant classic. In fact, it was so popular that it
launched a board game, a book, and
a charitable organization headed by Kevin Bacon; the game was
even adopted by Google (Per-
man, 2012; SixDegrees.org, 2014). To this day, you can go to
the Google home page, type the
name of any celebrity followed by the phrase bacon number,
and Google will tell you how they
are linked and by how many degrees of separation.
Although originally based on the six degrees concept, Bacon has
been in so many films that
four or more links are rare (Reynolds, 2015). The Six Degrees
of Kevin Bacon may seem like
a silly game, but it’s actually a great demonstration of the social
network concept. Next time
you’re on Google, try typing in the name of your favorite actor
or actress, along with bacon
number, and check out a social network in action.
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. Using the concepts from this chapter, explain how the Six
Degrees of Kevin Bacon
models a social network.
2. Consider Google’s adoption of this game. What motivated
Google’s designers to add this

feature? What is the function of the Google search engine? Does
it do more than simply
sift through information? Suggest one way in which adding
interaction games and fea-
tures to the search bar benefits Google and helps sustain a sense
of community in the
online environment.
cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 287 8/19/16 9:34 AM
Section 8.2 Social Networking: Leveraging the Social Media
Interface
Defining Online Communities
People seem to intuitively understand the concept of an online
community, but coming up
with an actual definition is easier said than done. The confusion
stems from the fact that
online communities can be extremely diverse in social and
technical structure, and added to
that, they are dynamic, evolving, and subject to constant change
(de Souza & Preece, 2004).
Given these conditions, a broad definition is most practical;
therefore, we define an online
community as a large number of people who consistently engage
in computer-supported
social interaction under some common interest or purpose and
are governed by communal
norms and policies (Preece, 2000; Miller, Fabian, & Lin, 2009).
Wikipedia and Pinterest

contributors, regular consumers of an online magazine or
consumer site, periodic participants
in a chat or knowledge-sharing forum, and the people with
whom we consistently interact on
Facebook are all examples of online communities.
The online public as a whole is sometimes referred to as the
online community. However, this
is simply a colloquialism that is only loosely connected to the
actual concept—in the same
way that some people will refer to any collection of others as a
“group.” Actual online commu-
nities have a concrete size that ranges from large (more than
1,000 members) to small (less
than 100 members). While their memberships are too large and
inconsistent in their interde-
pendencies to be considered a group, online communities are
certainly group-like in that their
members share some common interest or purpose and they self-
police collectively accepted
norms. Online communities are created and maintained through
the process of social net-
working (Haythornthwaite, 2007).
Some people think that members who neither interact within nor
share the same physical
context could not possibly constitute a community, a concept
associated with social
connectedness, cooperative behavior, interdependent interests,
and mutual concerns
(Sichling, 2008). However, despite the lack of real face-to-face
interaction, self-identified
members of online communities report experiencing the same
social bonds and interrelations
found in traditional communities, building strong emotional ties
to other online members

through participation in cooperative problem solving,
knowledge and story sharing, and
working toward common goals (Haythornthwaite, 2007). As
both social and commercial
interactions have moved increasingly online, social networking
and online communities have
had a profound impact on organizational knowledge sharing and
structure by redefining
organizations’ external (organization-to-public) and internal
(employee-to-employee)
interface.
8.2 Social Networking: Leveraging the Social Media
Interface
Netcentricity has caused a major change in societal and
organizational perspective. The world
has been reframed through the lens of information technology,
which has changed the way
we communicate, gather, store, and distribute information;
exchange value; and interact on
both personal and professional levels. The tools of the
information age—computer and IT
networks, e-mail and text messaging, blogs, wikis, RSS
publishing, social networking sites,
and real-time interfacing apps such as FaceTime and Skype—
have become primary chan-
nels of communication, connecting organizational members to
each other and to the outside
cog81769_08_c08_281-312.indd 288 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 8.2 Social Networking: Leveraging the Social Media
Interface
world. These tools have become core elements of organization
functioning, and thanks to
social media marketing, essential features of organizational
strategy as well (Straker, Wrigley,
& Rosemann, 2015). To understand how organizations make use
of these tools and how they
have reshaped organizational knowledge sharing and structure,
let’s look at how organiza-
tions leverage social media to enhance the function of their
external (organization-to-public)
and internal (employee-to-employee) interface.
Organization-to-Public Interface
Digital channels provide a new and powerful interface between
organizations and the public.
They offer near continuous and simultaneous access to millions
of existing and potential
consumers, customers, clients, employees, partners, suppliers,
and competitors that interact
at various online forums, including any surfers who happen to
pass through. Contemporary
organizations primarily engage the public through social media,
online tools and vehicles for
social interaction, communication, and information exchange.
These include blog and video
posts, “tweets,” Google bar games, surveys, advertisements,
widgets, comments, taglines, and
more. Social media is often confused with social networking
and social networking platforms.
Here is the difference: Social networking is an activity; social
networking platforms represent
the space in which this activity occurs; and social media are the
tools used to communicate

and interact during social networking sessions. When we post a
video response to someone’s
YouTube page, for example, we are engaging in social
networking (an activity involving social
connection and interaction), via a social networking platform
(YouTube), using social media
(our video post).
Online communities and social networking platforms have
become the prime forums for
social media marketing, advertisement, and public relations
campaigns (Petrov, Zubac, &
Milojevic, 2015). This application of netcentricity significantly
benefits the organization. The
online communities and social networking platforms that
support social media create a two-
way …

2457Cooperation and ConflictStocktrek ImagesThinkstoc.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 2457Cooperation and ConflictStocktrek ImagesThinkstoc.docx

Similar to 2457Cooperation and ConflictStocktrek ImagesThinkstoc.docx (17)

More from BHANU281672

More from BHANU281672 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2457Cooperation and ConflictStocktrek ImagesThinkstoc.docx