Owning the Code: Status Closure in Distributed Groups

Abstract

An ethnographic study of a team of software developers working on a new product across two groups—located on the West Coast of the United States and in Bangalore, India—is used to analyze status dynamics in distributed groups. Whereas existing literature has emphasized the importance of communication, task design, and incentives for cooperation, this paper shows how status differentials and geographic distance reinforce each other to affect the work processes and collaboration in distributed teams. The focus is on two elements: the relationship between the collaboration across the two groups and their members and the members’ interpretations of this relationship. Status influences the perceptions of the remote group, as well as the willingness to cooperate with its members. The key findings specify the informal closure strategies used by the high-status group in relation to the low-status group. Furthermore, the superimposition of geographic and status distance in remote work lowered the cost of exclusion of one group from the collaboration and led to the deepening of status differences between remote groups. By showing status to be both an input and an output of intergroup relations, the paper specifies some of the mechanisms through which status orderings are maintained and reinforced.

A systems perspective on offshoring strategy and motivational drivers amongst onshore and offshore employees

“…For this reason, they refused to move tasks to offshore locations, or they limited their effort in transferring the required knowledge (Zimmermann et al 2012;Zimmermann and Ravishankar 2014). Similarly, the fear of losing tasks and jobs has been identified as a reason for onshore members to withhold tasks and effort (Zimmermann and Ravishankar 2011;, to unduly criticize their offshore counterparts' work, and to avoid interacting with them as much as possible (Cohen and El Sawad 2007;Metiu 2006). Such fears can also cause onshore members to exclude offshore members from what they regard as their own, higher status onshore group, and to sabotage the offshore unit's chances of performing advanced tasks (Metiu 2006).…”

“…Similarly, the fear of losing tasks and jobs has been identified as a reason for onshore members to withhold tasks and effort (Zimmermann and Ravishankar 2011;, to unduly criticize their offshore counterparts' work, and to avoid interacting with them as much as possible (Cohen and El Sawad 2007;Metiu 2006). Such fears can also cause onshore members to exclude offshore members from what they regard as their own, higher status onshore group, and to sabotage the offshore unit's chances of performing advanced tasks (Metiu 2006). Although these studies have not examined offshoring strategies per se, it is obvious that such constrained collaboration between onshore and offshore units can make it hard to achieve offshoring targets.…”

“…Gerbl et al 2015;Dibbern et al, 2008;Stringfellow et al 2008). A small number of studies have further shown how individual level processes and social dynamics between onshore and offshore employees can determine the degree to which onshore employees support advanced task offshoring in practice (Cohen and El Sawad 2007;Mattarelli and Tagliaventi 2012;Metiu 2006;Zimmermann et al 2012;Zimmermann and Ravishankar 2014).…”

International R&D service outsourcing by technology-intensive firms: Whether and where?

“…The previous literature has also shown the importance of taking contractual issues into account in governance choices (Banerjee & Duflo, 2000;Metiu, 2006). More specifically, as firms accumulate technological capabilities they will not only be under more pressure to search for world-class suppliers, but also better equipped than other firms to establish outsourcing agreements with foreign providers (Mayer & Salomon, 2006) and to effectively manage a loosely coupled network of external suppliers by performing the role of systems integrator (Brusoni et al, 2001).…”

Virtual Teams and International Business Teaching and Learning: The Case of the Global Enterprise Experience (GEE)

“…People identify with their own locations before identifying with the team (Metiu, 2006). In addition, physical separation creates social "faultlines" and can result in conflict within teams (Hinds & Bailey, 2003) so that virtual teams may need to negotiate in order to work effectively (Cousins, Robey, & Zigurs, 2007).…”