How distributed work environments enhance social innovation

Leading Collaborative Work Environments

Distributed work environments can enhance social innovation in a couple of different ways. Firstly, such environments are highly dependent on communication. Thus, in some respect, distributed work environments can help to foster social innovations pertaining to communication, and even contain teams that outperform those in centralized locations (Seibdrat et al., 2009). The way that they do so is help people to become accustomed to communicating with one another in different ways than they would normal do so if they were in centralized environments. For instance, the predominance of mobile technologies, cloud computing, and even certain social media sites are a necessity that was partly engendered by distributed work environments. Virtually all of these technologies -- and most certainly the first two of the three mentioned -- are vital in aspects in which there are employees in different locations who need to communicate with one another. These employees become used to utilizing these technologies such as DropBox and other aspects of cloud computing in which they can readily share documents, regardless of locations and regardless of where they are on the map. These same employees then adopt these habits of communication, which are typically based on technology, in their personal lives and habits. In such a way, social innovation is definitely furthered and, in some instance, even engendered.

Additionally, business problems can pertain to general issues that society is incurring in either greater or lesser degrees. Solving those business problems then, as they relate to working in distributed environments, can help to solve those problems within society at large. For instance, Amazon is in the shipping industry and incurred the business problem of shipping to distant locations as efficiently and cheaply as possible. In the process of addressing this particular problem, Amazon inherently affected society. For instance, Amazon has helped to pioneer some techniques in drones and in new methods of mobile delivery. Once these technologies for deliveries are no longer novelties, society at large will be able to utilize then and they will simply become a part of daily life.

Another fairly simple way in which distributed work environments can enhance social innovation is through the corporate world in general. As Michael Porter (2013) made abundantly clear in his TED talks, the private sector has more monetary, information technology, and human resources than governmental entities, non-profits, and NGOs. The corporate environment is a decidedly distributed one. Although there are occasionally mergers and acquisitions, the competitive nature of business still provides for rivalries and competition between organizations.

Those rivalries and competitions, in turn, can cultivate social innovation virtually by the very nature of the corporate world. Businesses typically either provide a product or a service to customers. Those that can do so to address customer needs inherently benefit society and social innovation by making things better for their customers. The competitive nature of business keeps corporate entities honest by helping to regulate prices and providing the sort of customer service that is ultimately beneficial to society. If one company does not, another will and could considerably cut into the revenues of the former.

Thus, the two principle ways that distributed work environments can enhance social integration is through collaboration and competition. Howard Rheingold (2005) details salient aspects of the former in his TED talk, and elucidates the fact that the sort of assistance required for large scale cooperation between extremely distributed environments ultimately benefits society as a whole. His example of humans banding together to hunt mastodons demonstrates this fact well (Rheingold, 2005). Additionally, competition is another means in which distributed work environments can foster social innovation. In this case, disparate entities are seeking to outperform one another to deliver products and services to society at large.

Assignment 1 (2 pages)

Write about your thoughts about how distributed work environments can enhance social innovation. Integrate information from your readings and videos that you have viewed.

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_porter_why_business_can_be_good_at_solving_social_problems

http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration

Part of this assignment is to find a new resource on this topic (i.e. can be a movie, an article, a video clip) that you will share with the class in order to expand the discussion of this topic and/or illustrate a concept from this unit.

This course greatly shaped my vision about collaborative work environments, decision making, and professional practice. One of the fundamental ways it did so was in exposing me to the reality that conflict in work environments can actually produce a positive effect on decision making -- so long as it is dealt with respectfully by all parties involved. The course also taught me that maintaining that sort of respect and objective outlook on conflict, communication, and leadership is a key part of professional practice. Importantly, this class taught me that decision making can actually be collaborative, and that it is necessary to involve others in order to maximize the potential of both the organizations and the individuals involved with it.

In order to realistically lead with integrity and operate an organization in a manner that enhances all of its stakeholders it is necessary to know how to take counsel from others. In this respect, leadership is about appropriating resources (whether human or otherwise), and knowing where to turn for assistance when dealing with different scenarios. True leadership requires asking for and accepting criticism, supervising the progress of others, and prioritizing organizational objectives over those of the purported leader. True leadership integrity lies in modeling and actually exemplifying the relevant attributes that one expects of others, and of one's enterprise as a whole. Additionally, it is necessary to remain cognizant of the perspectives and opinions of the stakeholders, in order to successfully help them achieve their goals as well.

I was able to meet a few personal learning goals through taking this course. Firstly, and perhaps most eminently, I was able to expand my wealth of knowledge about leadership in formal organizational settings. Quite simply, I believe I have accumulated a number of raw materials via concepts and ideas that are applicable to different aspects of leadership. I certainly wanted to expand my knowledge of this subject matter, and this class helped me to realize this goal. Additionally, I was able to expand my personal network of scholars and potential professionals related to the discipline of leadership and organizational culture. In this regard, I have valuable resources for future study and learning, which may even prove to impact my career professionally.

Professionally, I will utilize the insights I have gained from this class by understanding that differences are actually beneficial to organizations and to organizational leadership. Therefore, I will actively seek to find opinions and viewpoints that are not congruent with mine or with the general direction of the organization I'm working in. Furthermore, I will try to integrate them with that direction and engage those whose skills, experiences, and viewpoints are different from mine in such a way that I am able to enhance our organizational objectives. Leadership is not based on blind following. Thus, I will attempt to utilize the full diversity of leadership and of whatever organization I am a part of to critique and ultimately improve it.

The instructional methods that enabled me to learn and develop my own ideas included the utilization of the entire "three dimensions" of online learning. In this regard, watching some of the videos that were required for this class was able to help me a lot. Not only did these videos reinforce concepts discussed throughout the program, but they also gave me an opportunity to get the viewpoints of others outside of the class environment. Doing so enabled me to foster some ideas of my own. Additionally, the discussion posts and the interaction with my classmates helped me to develop my own ideas, simply by letting me compare and contrast them with my peers.

Assignment 2 (Separate 2 pages)

Write a Final Learning Essay answering the following:

What instructional methods enabled you to learn and develop your own ideas.

Assignment 3 (Separate 14 pages)

Major Course Assignment / Case Study Research Analysis: Managing a Global Team: Greg James at Sun Microsystems, Inc. (A)

This case study is an integrative case study and research analysis that combines the topics in this course. The main learning outcomes of this case study are to:

• Understand the challenges of managing a globally dispersed team.

• Assess the benefits and challenges with flexible work systems.

• Understand the challenges of asynchronous communication and limited face-to-face interactions.

• Understand the role of social categorization in driving team behaviors.

Part 1: Defining Organizational Structure and Team Configurations

Requirements: This section of the paper should not exceed 4 pages, APA format, Microsoft Word.

First, critically reflect upon your personal and professional experiences in light of the course readings and discussions. Drawing upon and applying the course concept and using them to support your ideas, thoughtfully articulate your perspective on:

Drawing upon your previous classes, how do you define and differentiate (if at all) the concepts of: Virtual Teams, Global Virtual Teams, Distributed Teams, and Collaborative Work Environments?

Research Sun Microsystems and briefly describe how they have organized, why they have organized in this manner, and the overall benefits and drawbacks.

One of the chief defining points of the course that this assignment is completed for pertains to the numerous working environments that one is liable to encounter in contemporary times, largely due to the phenomenon of globalization and technological advancements. In particular, one can posit the viewpoint that the most popular of these environments includes that pertaining to virtual teams, global virtual teams, distributed teams, and collaborative work environments. A closer examination of the specifics of these environments reveals their similarities and differences, as well as advantages and disadvantages.

Virtual teams are probably the most commonly encountered working environment when one does not have daily interactions with others in a centralized location such as an office building. A virtual team is best defined as one in which the individuals do not have any sort of physical interaction -- where they are in the same physical location at the same point in time (Nemiro et al., 2008, p. 2). These teams are heavily reliant upon remote means of communication. Such communication typically takes the form of emails, phone calls, text messages, and inter-organizational communication such as web sites or content management systems that all team members have access to, and which enables them to communicate with one another.

One of the most pivotal aspects of virtual teams is that despite the fact that the team members do not see each other in the same physical location, they typically have the same objectives. Generally speaking, those objectives are departmental or business unit based, and do not encompass the aims of an entire organization. In fact, this aspect of virtual teams is one of their capital defining points. Virtual teams are merely departments that are in distributed locations. Additionally, those departments are typically in the same country, if not the same state or city.

As the name indicates, global virtual teams have a fair amount of similarity with virtual teams. The general concept for these teams is the same -- they are based on distributed locations for the team members. However, global virtual teams are distinct from their counterpart in that the distances that separates those teams is oftentimes much more vast. Team members can be located in any part of the world on a global virtual team, whereas those on virtual teams are usually in the same country. In global virtual teams, team members are frequently in different international regions.

Still, the structure of a global virtual team is strikingly similar to that of a virtual team. Team members are generally departmentally based. As such, they are working to achieve the same objectives for that department, and not necessarily objectives for the entire organization. Thus, there is a proximity and frequency in communication among team members that is vital in both instances. The physical distance between team members in global virtual teams is greater than that of those in virtual teams. However, that distance alone does not present very many differences in the nature of communication.

Instead, there are numerous other differences that must be accounted for in global virtual teams when compared to virtual teams. These differences primarily have to do with cultures, customs, and globalization in a very direct way. For instance, team members may not all speak the same language. Even those that are able to speak a common language (such as English, for example) may not be able to do so with a degree of proficiency that is indicative of their contribution to the team and to their overall value to it. Moreover, ways of communicating, from idiomatic expression to the very mores that one culture values and that another does not, can considerably complicate communication in this sort of working environment. There is a degree of diplomacy that must be maintained at all times for team members to achieve their objectives.

There is a marked difference in the structure and function of distributed teams as compared to virtual and global virtual teams. Distributed teams are located in different strategic places, pertaining to the value that they add to the team. This statement is not applicable to the aforementioned virtual teams, which generally have team members in different locations randomly and not necessarily related to their job functions. Distributed teams, however, do tend to have some form of centralized location or headquarters. However, critical aspects of its operations and, in more and more cases, its analytics are distributed in various environments pertaining to specific job functions.

This concept is perhaps most readily demonstrated in relation to data management, which can span across any vertical industry including finance, healthcare, energy and natural resources, etc. Oftentimes, such organizations will have a centralized location in the form of data centers. However, dependent upon where they need to attain their data from, they will also have decentralized locations for the purpose of gathering data and performing analytics. Although a company's data center might be locate in Chicago, it might have an operations presence in the gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and other parts of the world known to produce oil.

The point of distributed teams is that they perform different functions based on their locations. What is done remotely by team members in Alaska is not the same as what is done in the centralized location in Chicago. The benefit of a distributed team is that it enables an organization to expand its presence. The same concept does not apply to virtual teams (or virtual global teams), which have team members stationed haphazardly based on their choice of address. The stationing of distributed teams is strategic and in accordance to organizational objectives.

Collaborative work environments are environments in which individuals collaborate with one another across conventional boundaries. Those boundaries might include vertical industries, departments, business units, public and private sectors, etc. In a collaborative work environment, workers are focused on the greater good of what they are achieving, and utilize "collaborative technologies" (Nemiro et al., 2008, p. 332) to achieve them. That greater good might pertain to organizational objectives, or perhaps to social innovation, research and development, or some other aspect of business and social aims. These environments are based on collaboration and typically place a high premium on creativity.

Sun Microsystems was an information technology corporation that was acquired by Oracle at the beginning of the decade (Babcock, 2011). Sun Microsystems definitely utilized a decentralized environment that was managed with distributed teams. This fact has a lot to do with the particular focus of business that Sun Microsystems had. It made numerous developments and advancements in the software market, including engendering the Java computer programming language. However, the main portion of business for this company was in developing hardware (Babcock, 2011). It specialized in creating everything from individual computer components to servers, workstations, and storage parts.

Thus, this company was organized in a decentralized fashion that relied upon distributed teams because its scope of business was so large. Its centralized operations were in Silicon Valley. However, it had manufacturing facilities in parts of Oregon, Scotland and numerous international settings. Coordinating these operations required distributed teams. The overall benefit to Sun Microsystem's decentralized approach was that it was able to create several different revenue streams from the manufacturing of hardware, software, and technologies (programming languages, open source innovations, etc.). However, the drawback of this approach is that the company ultimately spread itself too thin when the majority of the It industry was headed towards a focus on software, and not hardware.

Research Sun Microsystems and briefly describe how they have organized, why they have organized in this manner, and the overall benefits and drawbacks.

Part 2: Case Study Analysis: Describing Team Behavior

Requirements: This section of the paper should not exceed 4 pages, APA format, Microsoft Word.

Drawing upon the readings and articles, describe how the following elements of team behavior have influenced Greg's team:

• Social Categorization

• The Mutual Knowledge (problem)

• Trust

• Conflict

Issues of trust, conflict, social categorization and the mutual knowledge (problem) are pertinent to the success of any team, regardless of its type or location. These issues were at the forefront of some of the core aspects of the Sun Microsystems, Inc. case study that involved Greg James. Many of these issues helped to exacerbate the situation that James dealt with, specifically as it related to the problem the company incurred with HS Holdings and its information technology team, Technology Integration Company. Some of these issues, however, were able to help ameliorate the problem to a certain extent.

Perhaps one of the most prominent issues which negatively impacted the efficacy with which Sun Microsystems, Inc. was able to deal with the HS problem pertains to trust. Granted, there were a series of complications that led to one of Sun's most valued customers (HS) having a situation in which its server was down for hours, upsetting customers, permanently losing revenues, and violating the terms of the customer service agreement between Sun Microsystems and HS. However, there is a distinct possibility that this problem could have not reached the magnitude that it had had there been some basic trust between the various teams stationed in different parts of the world that Sun Microsystems employed to prevent just such happenings.

Specifically, it is quite clear that the relationship between the team and India and certain individuals in the U.S. based team directly revolved around trust. The critical component of the problem with HS is that Sun Microsystems was too slow to respond to the needs of its servers and customers. The latter could have responded significantly faster had there been trust between the Indian team that first discovered the problem, and the U.S. team that could have readily assuaged it for HS. However, the basis for the trust issue between these two teams was predicated on the fact that one of the employees in India heard that one of the principals of the U.S. team (Nick) remarking that the Indian team was not competent. Thus, there was only a cursory attempt to contact Nick about the problem in a timely manner (Neely and DeLong, 2009, p. 4).

Had there been increased levels of trust between the team in India and the aforementioned member of the U.S. team, it is likely that the latter would have been notified about the problem more readily. In fact, this problem is emblematic of the trust issue that Sun Microsystem has on all sides. The Indian team was offended by the U.S. team and did not have enough trust in one of its leading figures to notify him of the emergency. Conversely, the fact that that team member was not notified would only deepen his distrust in the Indian team, in addition to deepening his conviction that they are not competent.

In this respect, the trust issue that Sun Microsoft experienced is actually linked to the notion of conflict within this company, to various "conflicts of interest" (Chesbrough and Teese, 2002, p. 1) between the different teams. Conflict does not necessarily have to produce a negative impact on an organization. Actually, when it is dealt with in a direct, respectful way, it can broaden organizational perspective and include a number of creative approaches and solutions to daily business processes. However, when it is not addressed in such a manner (or perhaps not addressed at all), it creates a decidedly detrimental effect on the organization. The lack of trust evinced between the American and Indian teams in Sun Microsoft led to a latent form of conflict, in which because of the perceptions of an American team member the Indian team attempted to solve a major problem without his involvement (despite the fact that the U.S. figurehead was the foremost member of the company for its customer in this situation).

Another aspect of conflict pertained to the way that the Indian team responded (and did not respond) to the HS situation. The team had been dissatisfied with some of James' policies and procedures well before the incident. In addition to dealing with the fact that the team was aware that certain U.S. representatives did not think highly of their competency, the team had some other basic issues that indirectly contributed to the HS situation. The team was unhappy with the meetings that were scheduled weekly amongst the team members, mostly because they made the work days of team members last until 9 p.m. Additionally, the team also had the earliest start of all the team members, because they required a briefing at 6 in the morning about the activities of the U.S. team. Finally, the team wanted to help develop some of the technologies, products and software that Sun Microsoft was known for, yet routinely had to eschew those opportunities to deal with customer problems (Neely and DeLong, 2009, p. 9).

Again, what it pivotal to note about these particular aspects of conflict is that they were not directly addressed prior to the HS situation. If so, they could have possibly been ameliorated. Additionally, Sun Microsoft could have also exploited some of the creativity of the team. However, by leaving them unaddressed, members of the Indian team merely simmered in their own feelings, contributing to their lack of appropriate responsiveness with the HS scenario. Additionally, there is a link between this particular aspect of conflict and the concept of social categorization. In this respect, social categorization reflects a degree of prioritization of the various teams that James managed. It is fairly obvious that the Indian team was last in this categorization. It was expected to work both well before and well after other teams did. Additionally, the type of assignments it was selected for were not the prestigious, creative ones that typified the efforts of the other team members from different countries. From this perspective, it was clear that the team's social categorization actually contributed to its feelings of conflict and to the surrounding trust issues that plagued this part of the Sun Microsoft's organization. If its social categorization had been a more prominent priority, it is quite possible that it would have been more willing to engage the other members of the team (especially Nick), who could have handled the HS situation before it became disastrous.

More than any of the other factors discussed in this document, the mutual knowledge of the problem is the basis in which the difficulties with HS are rooted. Quite simply, there was not mutual knowledge of the server failure among the teams in the sort of democratized fashion which was needed to ameliorate this situation. The American team -- which is the one that was handling the initial installation and other salient factors of this account -- was not notified of the situation until several hours had elapsed, during which time HS lost valuable revenues and service opportunities with its customers. Mutual knowledge, therefore, is a priority for not only this emergency but also future ones that James and his team might encounter. Thus, the lack of mutual knowledge (in a timely fashion) influenced James' team by helping to distance it and to reduce its ability to respond with the sort of alacrity that was required. Even with all of the other factors, timely mutual knowledge could have greatly decreased the severity of this issue with HS.

Part 3: Case Study Analysis: Team Configuration

Requirements: This section of the paper should not exceed 4 pages, APA format, Microsoft Word.

Drawing upon the readings and articles, describe how the following elements of team configuration have influenced Greg's team:

• Distance

• Imbalance

• Demographic Alignment

An analysis of this case study reveals that there are numerous critical elements of team configuration that have influenced Greg's team. One of the most apropos of these is distance. There are myriad references to various facets of James' team that he was unaware of until after the HS fiasco. Additionally, there were certain imbalances in the team due to national realities and the international nature of the team itself. Quite simply, common practices in one country -- which inherently affected the team working there -- are not common in others, which resulted in certain imbalances. Finally, the alignment of the demographics, which again was related to the different countries in which team members were stationed, influenced certain factors in the team as well.

The distance between the various teams helped to contribute negatively to the team's overall efficiency. Another way of phrasing this fact is that were the team assembled in a centralized location, certain problems and tense situations could have either been avoided or quelled before they produced detrimental effects to the team. For instance, there were certain issues between members of the UAE team that James was not aware of that produced tension within that team. Had James spent more time around that team, he likely would have known that fact and could have possibly helped those particular team members work through their problems with one another. Distance, of course, is what prevented him from doing so. Virtually anytime there are international partnerships, they "require a dense web of interpersonal connections" (Kanter, 1994, p. 2) that definitely needed strengthening in the case of James' team.

Moreover, the distance also contributed to certain instances of tension that developed between teams as well as within teams. For example, the UAE team was the one that was physically and culturally more distant to the other teams than those in the other countries. As such, its team members were concerned about receiving a high standing in the eyes of James -- which is an uncomfortable work situation for the former. Additionally, the UAE team felt that it was not only neglected by James, but that there were situations in which it was made to labor subserviently to the team from India (Neeley and DeLong, 2009, p. 10). Again, the distances between these two teams in terms of physical locality was also underscored by certain cultural points of distance. Had there not been so much distance between these particular teams and the others that James was managing, there very likely could have been greater instances of solidarity that could have helped when the HS crisis occurred.

The most important thing to realize about the influence of distance, imbalance and demographic alignment is that these factors actually influence one another, adding to the overall impact they produced on James' team. Thus, the physical distance referenced earlier also manifested itself in certain cultural and habitual points of distance, which in turn affected the imbalance of the team. Quite simply, not all members of the team felt that their business units were on par with those of the others. It is interesting to realize that were there a hierarchy within James' international teams, it would feature (in descending order) the Americans, the French, the Indians, and the UAE team members. It is perhaps not insignificant that the Europeans received more favoritism and attention from James (certainly from the viewpoints of the non-Europeans) than their Indian and Middle Eastern counterparts did.

One of the points of imbalance between the Americans and the French teams that was directly related to distance pertains to the perception that James spent more time with the former and prioritized them over the latter. From a physical distance perspective, such a tendency on the part of the manager was natural since he spent much more time with the American unit. However, there were also very poignant perceptions of imbalance pertaining to the disparity in salaries between these two teams, and the amount of work that they did. French regulations enabled the French to have significantly greater amounts of vacation time than the American did; similarly, French regulations for job security was partially used to account for the higher American salaries (Neeley and DeLong, 2009, p. 9). These imbalances, then, were indirectly related to distance and still contributed to ongoing stress for James as a manager.