DOCSLIB.ORG

Social Loafing in Multicultural Teams

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Social Loafing in Multicultural Teams Author Verona Bardhoku Submission Institute of Innovation Management Thesis Supervisor Univ.-Prof. Dr. Robert. J. Breitenecker Co-Supervisor Mag. Andreas Krawinkler SOCIAL LOAFING IN November 2020 MULTICULTURAL TEAMS: A qualitative perspective on social loafing tendencies in multicultural teams of international business students. Master’s Thesis to confer the academic degree of Master of Science Global Business in the Joint Master’s Program Global Business – Canada/Taiwan JOHANNES KEPLER UNIVERSITY LINZ Altenberger Straße 69 4040 Linz, Austria jku.at SWORN DECLARATION I hereby declare under oath that the submitted Master’s Thesis has been written solely by me without any third-party assistance, information other than provided sources or aids have not been used and those used have been fully documented. Sources for literal, paraphrased and cited quotes have been accurately credited. The submitted document here present is identical to the electronically submitted text document. Linz, November 2020 Verona Bardhoku November, 2020 Verona Bardhoku 2 /102 Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my thesis supervisor Univ.-Prof. Dr. Robert Breitenecker and my co-supervisor Mag. Andreas Krawinkler. Thank you for your guidance and advice during the time I was writing this thesis. Thank you for the fast collaboration and answering all my questions. Further, I would like to express my appreciation for all the interviewees, especially the ones who did not know me and still accepted to share their experiences and thoughts with me. Everyone gave me impactful insights and helped me make this thesis possible. As of last, I would like to thank my family for their financial and emotional support during my whole studies, and especially during the time I was writing this thesis. November, 2020 Verona Bardhoku 3 /102 Abstract The aim of this master thesis is to unveil the impact of culture on social loafing. With increasing global interaction, understanding cultural diversity and its implications have become critical in successfully navigating multicultural environments. To investigate this research question, the author conducted semi-structured interviews with nine Global Business Program students. A qualitative research method is applied to evaluate these interviews, with the help of qualitative research software. Particularly, this research scrutinizes the general factors that stimulate and shrink the presence of social loafing in multicultural teams. Particular attention was paid to exploring the impact of culture. This research concluded that multicultural teams are affected by the same factors as monocultural teams; however, there are faced with additional influencing aspects. This research did not get results that support the hypothesis that social loafing is more present in specific cultures than others. Nonetheless, it was concluded that culture does impact the perception of the expected contribution in a team, thus, leading to multicultural team members putting different levels of effort. Key words: social loafing, freeriding, teams, multicultural, international, performance November, 2020 Verona Bardhoku 4 /102 Table of Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 8 1.1. Problem definition ........................................................................................................... 9 1.2. Research gap and motivation ..................................................................................... 10 1.3. Research questions ...................................................................................................... 11 1.4. Structure of the thesis .................................................................................................. 13 2. Literature review ................................................................................................................. 15 2.1. Social loafing ................................................................................................................. 16 2.2. Outcomes of social loafing .......................................................................................... 18 2.2.1. Social compensation ......................................................................................... 18 2.2.2. Sucker effect ....................................................................................................... 18 2.2.3. Freeriding and shirking ..................................................................................... 19 2.2.4. Performance ....................................................................................................... 19 2.3. Factors that increase social loafing ............................................................................ 21 2.3.1. Team size............................................................................................................ 21 2.3.2. Task characteristics ........................................................................................... 22 2.3.3. Team composition ............................................................................................. 23 2.3.4. Expectations of others behavior ...................................................................... 29 2.4. Factors that minimize social loafing ........................................................................... 30 2.4.1. Social connections and friendships ................................................................ 30 2.4.2. Rewards .............................................................................................................. 31 2.4.3. Team cohesion and team identity ................................................................... 33 2.4.4. Team composition ............................................................................................. 33 2.4.5. Self-efficacy and collective efficacy ................................................................ 35 2.4.6. Peer-evaluation and feedback ......................................................................... 36 2.4.7. Social comparison ............................................................................................. 37 2.5. Social loafing in international teams .......................................................................... 38 2.6. Summary social loafing and framework .................................................................... 41 3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 44 3.1. Research method .......................................................................................................... 44 3.2. Interview sample and data collection ......................................................................... 45 3.3. Conducting the analysis ............................................................................................... 47 4. Results and analysis ......................................................................................................... 48 4.1. Sub-question 1: What leads to social loafing in multicultural teams?................... 50 4.1.1. Team size............................................................................................................ 50 4.1.2. Task characteristics ........................................................................................... 51 4.1.3. Team composition ............................................................................................. 52 November, 2020 Verona Bardhoku 5 /102 4.1.4. Expectations of others behavior ...................................................................... 55 4.2. Sub-question 2: How to avoid social loafing in multicultural teams? .................... 57 4.2.1. Team composition ............................................................................................. 57 4.2.2. Peer review and feedback ................................................................................ 61 4.2.3. Social comparison ............................................................................................. 62 4.2.4. Rewards .............................................................................................................. 63 4.2.5. Team cohesion ................................................................................................... 64 4.2.6. Social connections ............................................................................................. 65 4.2.7. Self-efficacy ........................................................................................................ 66 4.2.8. Additional factors avoiding social loafing ....................................................... 67 4.3. Sub-question 3: How does cultural diversity influence social loafing? ................. 69 4.4. Additional codes ............................................................................................................ 73 4.4.1. Additional factors influencing socia loafing .................................................... 73 4.4.2. Social compensation or sucker effect: performance outcomes ................. 75 4.5. Summary analysis and revised framework ............................................................... 79 5. Discussion............................................................................................................................ 82 5.1. Sub-question 1: What leads to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Social Loafing: a Review of the Literature
    Social Loafing: A Review of the Literature Ashley Simms Texas Wesleyan University Tommy Nichols Texas Wesleyan University Social loafing is a phenomenon that has been discussed and researched since 1913. Though it has been long examined, recent technological developments offer ample opportunity for further study. This paper summarizes its long history of research and offers several propositions for future research. INTRODUCTION In 1913 a phenomenon was found that, at the time, did not receive sufficient attention. Maximilien Ringelmann, a French agricultural engineer, observed that when a group of people collectively pulled on a rope, the output was less than when group members individually pulled on the rope (Kravitz and Martin, 1986; Ringelmann, 1913). The results of this finding were not considered further until 1974 when Ingham, Levinger, Graves, and Peckham recreated the experiment. The term “social loafing” was coined for the discovery that participants working in groups exert less effort than participants working individually. It was described as having a detrimental effect on individuals and the institutions associated with them (Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). From there, the research evolved into five distinct categories: 1) establishing the existence of social loafing in both physical and cognitive group projects, 2) causes and deterrents of social loafing, 3) partner adaptation to group member social loafing (such as the “Sucker Effect”), 4) social loafing as a positive mechanism, and finally 5) social loafing in modern technology. ESTABLISHING SOCIAL LOAFING EXISTS The origins of social loafing begin with “The Ringelmann Effect,” which describes the tendency for individuals to lower their productivity when in a group (Ringlemann, 1913); Ingham, Levinger, Graves and Peckham relabeled this effect “social loafing” when they were successful in demonstrating individual effort declines in a curvilinear fashion when people work as a group or only believe they are working in a group (Ingham, Levinger, Graves, & Peckham, 1974).
    [Show full text]
  • Social Psychology Is Its Study of Attitudes, Beliefs, Decisions, and Actions and the Way They Are Molded by Social Influence
    10/7/2013 Social Influence The greatest contribution of social psychology is its study of attitudes, beliefs, decisions, and actions and the way they are molded by social influence. Module 36: Social Thinking and Social Influence © 2013 Worth Publishers Social Influence Cultural Influences Conformity . Culture, the behaviors and beliefs of a group, is shared What form of social influence is and passed on to others including the next generation the subject of this cartoon? of that group. Conformity refers to adjusting our behavior or thinking to fit in with a group standard. This sharing of traditions, values, and ideas is a form of social influence that helps maintain the culture. Norms are the rules, often unspoken but commonly understood, that guide behavior in a culture. Cultures change over time; norms for marriage and divorce have changed in Western culture. Social Influence Mimicry Automatic Mimicry It is not only Some of our mimicry of other people is not by choice, but true that automatic: birds of a . Chameleon Effect: unintentionally mirroring the body feather flock together: it is position and mood of others around us, leading to also true that contagious yawning, contagious arm folding, hand if we flock wringing, face rubbing… together, we might choose . Unconsciously mimicking others helps us to feel what to wear the they’re feeling. Automatic mimicry is part of empathy. same . Those who are eager to fit in are more prone to feathers. automatic mimicry. http://youtu.be/zVaknBrb-fQ 1 10/7/2013 Conformity Social Influence: Conformity Responding to Social Norms What makes you more likely to When we are with other people and perceive a social norm (a “correct” conform? or “normal” way to behave or think in this group), our behavior may follow the norm rather than following our own judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Psychology (12-2 Thru 12-6; 12-14, 12-15)
    12/7/2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiWZxOdXiUs go to 1:27 http://www.learner.org/discoveringpsychology/19/e19expand.html?pop=yes&pid=1516# Social Psychology • Areas of Social Psychology (12-2 thru 12-6; 12-14, 12-15) • Social thinking/social cognition (how we think about others & how others influence our thoughts) • Study of how our thoughts, • Person perception feelings, perceptions, and • Interpersonal attraction behavior are influenced by • Attitudes & how they’re influenced • Stereotypes/Prejudice the presence of or • Propaganda interactions with others. • Social influence (how our behavior is influenced by • Relatively recent addition to others) psychology • Social relationships • Research influenced by current social problems • Others or social situations have powerful effects on us! One Social Thinking Effect: Others Focus on Social Influences on Our Behavior • Fundamental attribution error • How our behavior is influenced, directly or • The tendency, when analyzing others’ behaviors, to: indirectly, by the presence and/or the behavior of • overestimate the influence of personal traits AND others, the social situation • underestimate the effects of the situation • Behavior of groups • When analyzing our own behaviors we are more likely to take • Conformity; Obedience the situation into account • Social roles, norms & impact of situation • Behavior in crowds; Aggression • Example: see someone trip – think they are a klutz • But if you trip, blame it on the uneven sidewalk • Recommended leisure reading: Influence by Robert Cialdini • Social psych research on influence has provided critical data for all sorts of careers that involve influencing Social Influence: Conformity others: • Marketing & Sales In some ways we are built to conform (remember • Politics observational learning, mirror neurons) : • Fund-raising • Litigation • Management Automatic Mimicry • Behavior is contagious; what we see we often do.
    [Show full text]
  • Perception of Social Loafing, Conflict, and Emotion in the Process of Group Development
    PERCEPTION OF SOCIAL LOAFING, CONFLICT, AND EMOTION IN THE PROCESS OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY MIN ZHU IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DR. DEAN E. HEWES, ADVISER AUGUST, 2013 © Min Zhu 2013 i ABSTRACT This study was conducted for two purposes. The first was to find out trend patterns for perceived social loafing, the four types of intra-group conflict (i.e., task, relationship, logistic, and contribution), and positive vs. negative emotions, in the group’s developmental process. The second was to explain how perceived social loafing was aroused based upon the knowledge of intra-group conflicts and negative emotions. Participants (n = 164) were required to report their personal perception of social loafing, intra-group conflicts, emotions (i.e., anger, fatigue, vigor, confusion, tension, depression, and friendliness), and the stage of group development, in their current small group interaction. Four major findings emerged out of the data analysis. First, perceived social loafing, relationship conflict, logistical conflict, contribution conflict, and negative emotions all followed a reversed V-shaped trend of development with their respective peaks observed at Stage 2 (i.e., Counterdependency and Fight), whereas task conflict followed a slanted, N-shaped, but relatively stable, trend over the course of group development. Second, positive emotions developed in a V-shaped trend pattern, wherein the lowest point was observed at Stage 2 and highest point at Stage 4 (i.e., Work). Third, the perception of social loafing was found to be directly and positively influenced by contribution conflict and negative emotions, while task conflict, logistical conflict, and relationship conflict did not have direct positive effects on perceived social loafing.
    [Show full text]
  • Electronic Helping Behavior: the Virtual Presence
    BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 27(2), 171–178 Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Electronic Helping Behavior: The Virtual Presence ELECTRONICBLAIR, THOMPSON, HELPING WUENSCH BEHAVIOR of Others Makes a Difference Carrie A. Blair, Lori Foster Thompson, and Karl L. Wuensch Department of Psychology East Carolina University Years of research have demonstrated that the physical presence of others can reduce the ten- dency to help individuals needing assistance. This study examined whether the diffusion of re- sponsibility phenomenon extends beyond face-to-face environments and helps explain the lack of responsiveness often demonstrated by Internet users who receive e-mail requests sent to multiple people simultaneously. Participants were sent an e-mail message requesting assistance with an online library search task. Each person received the message along with an indication that 0, 1, 14, or 49 others were also contacted. The results demonstrated partial support for the study hypothesis. As expected, the virtual presence of many others significantly reduced e-mail responsiveness; however, nonresponse did not directly increase in proportion with group size. Today, a great deal of human interaction occurs online, and and computer-supported cooperative work) has addressed people commonly use the Internet to solicit personal and pro- this phenomenon and its vast implications. Literatures in- fessional assistance from others. The Internet offers many cluding but not limited to the topics of diffusion of responsi- appealing benefits to those wishing to reach out to people for bility, social loafing, the bystander effect, cooperation and help. For example, e-mail can be used to contact many asso- exchange, group dynamics in computer-mediated interac- ciates easily and simultaneously.
    [Show full text]
  • Sghvita 8-16
    STEPHEN G. HARKINS August, 2016 University Address: Department of Psychology Northeastern University 360 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 (617) 373-3796 [email protected] Education: B.A. 1970 University of Texas, Austin, English M.A. 1972 University of Missouri, Social Psychology Ph.D. 1975 University of Missouri, Social Psychology Employment: 1998-2007 Chair 1989- Professor, Northeastern University 1983-1988 Associate Professor, Northeastern University 1981-1982 Visiting Assistant Professor, Ohio State University 1977-1982 Assistant Professor, Northeastern University 1975-1977 Postdoctoral Research Associate, Ohio State University Grant Support: 1976-1977 National Science Foundation, BNS 76-19629, Theory of social impact. Co-principal investigator (with B. Latane). $74,000. 1977-1978 Northeastern University Biomedical Science Support Grant, The effects of group presence on performance and persuasability. $650. 1979-1980 National Science Foundation, BNS 79-13753, Group Size and persuasion: Magnification and diffusion effects. (Co-principal investigator, R. Petty). $35,000. 1980-1982 Office of Naval Research, Increasing productivity through social structure. Co-principal investigator (with B. Latane and K. Williams). $12,000 per year. 1985-1986 Northeastern University, RSDF, Self-evaluation and performance. $3,666. 1987-1988 Northeastern University Biomedical Science Support Grant, Social loafing revisited (with K. Szymanski). $400. 1998-2007 National Institute of Mental Health, 5T32 MH 19729, Training Basic Researchers, with emphasis on minorities, Departmental Training Grant. Principal Investigator. $200,000 per year. 2012-2015 Army Research Institute, The Effect of Threat on Task Performance: Testing the Threat-Induced Potentiation of Prepotent Responses Model. Principal Investigator. $575,681. Awards: 1980 Socio-Psychological Prize, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Stereotype Threat on the Solving of Quantitative GRE Problems: a Mere Effort Interpretation
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull OnlineFirst, published on May 6, 2009 as doi:10.1177/0146167209335165 The Effect of Stereotype Threat on the Solving of Quantitative GRE Problems: A Mere Effort Interpretation Jeremy P. Jamieson Stephen G. Harkins Northeastern University The mere effort account argues that stereotype threat ways—cognitively, affectively, and motivationally” (p. 397). motivates participants to want to perform well, which Consistent with this view, Schmader, Johns, and Forbes potentiates prepotent responses. If the prepotent response (2008) have identified working memory “as a core cog- is correct, performance is facilitated. If incorrect and nitive faculty that is implicated in cognitive and social participants do not know, or lack the knowledge or time stereotype threat effects” (p. 337). Research has also required for correction, performance is debilitated. The demonstrated the role of affective processes (e.g., anxi- Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) quantitative test ety; Bosson, Haymovitz, & Pinel 2004). In the current is made up of two problem types: (a) solve problems, work, we focus on the contribution of motivation to which require the solution of an equation, and (b) com- threat effects, specifically on Jamieson and Harkins’s parison problems, which require the use of logic and esti- (2007) mere effort account. mation. Previous research shows that the prepotent The mere effort account was suggested by Harkins’s tendency is to attempt to solve the equations. Consistent (2006) analysis of the effect of evaluation on performance. with mere effort predictions, Experiment 1 demonstrates This account argues that evaluation motivates partici- that threatened participants perform better than con- pants to want to perform well, which potentiates whatever trols on solve problems (prepotent response correct) but response is prepotent, or most likely to be produced in a worse than controls on comparison problems (prepotent given situation.
    [Show full text]
  • British Journal of Social Psychology, 46 (3), 499-515
    NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in International Journal of Project Management. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in International Journal of Project Management, [VOL 31, ISSUE 6, (2013)] DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.09.002" Obsessive passion, competence, and performance in a project management context Abstract Obsessive passion is when people have a strong inclination toward an activity that they like, find important, and in which they spend significant time, but also feel internal pressure to engage in. Prior research has demonstrated that obsessive passion typically brings several negative consequences. The present study nuances the picture by showing that there are indeed conditions when obsessive passion can be beneficial and that it has an important role for project management. It develops and tests hypotheses on the role of project leaders’ obsessive passion for project goals. Results support that challenging goals are attained to a greater extent if the project leader scores high on obsessive passion. Such obsessive passion, in turn, is a result of the project leader’s competence (positive relationship) and the team’s competence (inverted U- shaped relationship). These results have important implications for theory and future research on passion, goal theory, and competence in projects. Keywords: Obsessive passion; Competence; Goal attainment; Goal theory; Project management 1 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Combating Social Loafing Performance Reductions in Virtual
    Combating Social Loafing Performance Reductions in Virtual Groups With Increased Cohesion, Reduced Deindividuation, and Heightened Evaluation Potential Through Self-Disclosure. The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Hagen, Matthew Howard. 2015. Combating Social Loafing Performance Reductions in Virtual Groups With Increased Cohesion, Reduced Deindividuation, and Heightened Evaluation Potential Through Self-Disclosure.. Master's thesis, Harvard Extension School. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:24078371 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Combating Social Loafing Performance Reductions in Virtual Groups with Increased Cohesion, Reduced Deindividuation, and Heightened Evaluation Potential Through Self- Disclosure. Matthew H. Hagen A Thesis in the Field of Psychology for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies Harvard University November 2015 ©2015 Matthew H. Hagen Abstract Over 100 years of research have shown that social loafing is a real and material psychological phenomenon that reduces performance among humans in groups. It is known that increasing evaluation potential, decreasing deindividuation, and cohesion all lead to reduced social loafing in physical environments. What has not yet been well researched is whether or not the findings associated with many of these variables also apply to virtualized working environments. In the present study, 200 individuals were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (an online work community) and were split into experimental and control groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Loafing Construct Validity In
    The University of San Francisco USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center Doctoral Dissertations Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects 2017 Social Loafing Construct Validity in Higher Education: How Well Do Three Measures of Social Loafing Stand Up to Scrutiny? Jacquelyn Deleau University of San Francisco, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.usfca.edu/diss Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Education Commons, and the Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons Recommended Citation Deleau, Jacquelyn, "Social Loafing Construct Validity in Higher Education: How Well Do Three Measures of Social Loafing Stand Up to Scrutiny?" (2017). Doctoral Dissertations. 345. https://repository.usfca.edu/diss/345 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects at USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The University of San Francisco SOCIAL LOAFING CONSTRUCT VALIDITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: HOW WELL DO THREE MEASURES OF SOCIAL LOAFING STAND UP TO SCRUTINY? A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the School of Education Learning and Instruction Department In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education by Jacquelyn de l’Eau San Francisco, CA June 2017 THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO Dissertation Abstract Social Loafing Construct Validity in Higher Education: How Well Do Three Measures of Social Loafing Stand Up to Scrutiny? The purpose of this study was to examine the construct validity of social loafing using convergent and discriminant validity principles.
    [Show full text]
  • Sociopsychotechnological Predictors of Individual's Social Loafing In
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE) Vol. 5, No. 6, December 2015, pp. 1500~1510 ISSN: 2088-8708 1500 Sociopsychotechnological Predictors of Individual’s Social Loafing in Virtual Team Juneman Abraham, Melina Trimutiasari Department of Psychology, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia Article Info ABSTRACT Article history: The rapid development of technology and the demands of the workers to be productive have made efficiency and effectiveness of virtual team Received Jul 7, 2015 collaboration is becoming increasingly urgent lately. Therefore, it is Revised Aug 20, 2015 important to identify the variables undermining the efficiency and Accepted Sep 8, 2015 effectiveness. This study aimed to investigate the role of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived playfulness of online Keyword: collaboration tool (as elements of technology acceptance) and xenophobia in predicting social loafing (at the individual level)-a social psychological Human-computer interaction phenomenon that shows the declining performance of the individual when Psychotechnology working in the group. The contribution of this research is its attempt to Social loafing combine social psychological and technological factors in explaining human Technology acceptance performance in the context of the group when interacting with technology. Xenophobia The research design was correlational predictive, with multiple linear regression data analysis technique. Participants of this study were 80 students and employees (43 males, 37 females; mean of age = 25.58 years of old, standard deviation of age = 4.92 years) who work using online collaboration tool in a virtual team.
    [Show full text]
  • Team Size, Dispersion, and Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Teams: a Perspective on the Theory of Moral Disengagement
    Team Size, Dispersion, and Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Teams: A Perspective on the Theory of Moral Disengagement OMAR A. ALNUAIMI, LIONEL P. RoBERT JR., AND LIKOEBE M. MARUPING OMAR A. ALNUAIMI is Assistant Professor in the College of Business and Economics at the United Arab Emirates University. He received his Ph.D. in Information Systems from the Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. His research focuses on technology-enabled team collaboration, enterprise systems imple- mentations, and electronic government. His research has appeared or is forthcoming in Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education and conference proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). LI O NEL P. RO BERT JR. is Assistant Professor of Information Systems at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Sam M. Walton College of Business. His research focuses on team collaboration in virtual environments. Dr. Robert was a BAT doctoral fellow and KPMG scholar at Indiana University, where he completed his Ph.D. in Information Systems. Dr. Robert’s research has been published in Information Systems Research, Journal of Management Information Systems, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, and Journal of Quality Management, as well as in conference proceed- ings, including the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), and Academy of Management Conference (AOM). His book Social Capital and Knowledge Integration in Virtual Teams was published by VCM Verlag in 2007. LIK O EBE M. MARU P ING is Associate Professor of Information Systems in the College of Business at the University of Louisville. He was previously at the Sam M.
    [Show full text]