Managing Multinational Teams: Global Perspectives: Article Information

Managing Multinational Teams: Global Perspectives
Knowledge Resource Sharing in Dispersed Multinational Teams: Three Theoretical

Lenses
Janet Fulk, Peter Monge, Andrea B. Hollingshead
Article information:
To cite this document: Janet Fulk, Peter Monge, Andrea B. Hollingshead. "Knowledge
Resource Sharing in Dispersed Multinational Teams: Three Theoretical Lenses" In
Managing Multinational Teams: Global Perspectives. Published online: 09 Mar 2015;
155-188.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 07:05 16 August 2016 (PT)
Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-7929(05)18006-8
Downloaded on: 16 August 2016, At: 07:05 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 103 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 381 times since NaN*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2005),"Communication and the Learning Effectiveness of Multinational Teams",
Advances in International Management, Vol. 18 pp. 97-123
(2005),"Internal Dynamics and Cultural Intelligence in Multinational Teams", Advances
in International Management, Vol. 18 pp. 3-31
(2005),"Managing a Multinational Team: Lessons from Project Globe", Advances in
International Management, Vol. 18 pp. 337-360
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

emerald-srm:333301 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please
use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which
publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society.
The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and
book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and
additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner
of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the
LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
KNOWLEDGE RESOURCE
SHARING IN DISPERSED
MULTINATIONAL TEAMS:
THREE THEORETICAL LENSES
Janet Fulk, Peter Monge and Andrea B. Hollingshead
ABSTRACT
Dispersed multinational teams include people from multiple nations, some

of whom are not collocated. In a knowledge economy, such teams must
locate, store, allocate, and retrieve knowledge. Three central questions
are: (a) How can dispersed multinational teams manage knowledge
resource flows? (b) What factors influence knowledge resource distribu-
tion in these teams? and (c) How do dispersed multinational teams evolve
over time? This chapter examines knowledge resource sharing in multi-
national teams through three theoretical lenses: transactive memory the-
ory, collective action theory, and evolutionary theory, and concludes with
practical suggestions for managing dispersed multinational teams that are
derived from these three theoretical lenses.
Globalization may be thought of initially as the widening, deepening and speeding up of

worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life, from the cultural
Managing Multinational Teams: Global Perspectives

Advances in International Management, Volume 18, 155–188
Copyright r 2005 by Elsevier Ltd.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 0747-7929/doi:10.1016/S0747-7929(05)18006-8
155
156 JANET FULK ET AL.
to the criminal, the financial to the spiritual (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton,
1999, p. 2).
Worldwide interconnectedness is increasing at a rate unparalleled in human

history (Monge & Matei, 2004). Compared with any prior epoch, today’s
global networks are more extensive, denser, and faster conduits for the flow
of people, goods, services, and information (Monge, 1998). Concomitantly,
these networks have an increased propensity for impact on decisions,
institutions, infrastructures, and distributions of power and resources (Held
et al., 1999). Globalization of production and distribution is evident in such

forms as overseas expansion of domestic operations for multinational cor-
porations (Dicken, 1992; Parker, 1998), transnational business networks
(Monge & Contractor, 2003), migration of labor (Castells, 1996; Held et al.,
1999; Waters, 1995), and the rise of global network organizations (Fulk,
2001). Globalization of non-profit sectors is evident in increased networking
among Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) and the increasing prev-
alence and power of international NGOs (Scholte, 2002; Shumate, 2003).
Criminal networks are increasingly transnational and intimately linked with
global financial networks (Castells, 1998). Countermovements and resist-
ance organizations mobilize and draw resources from around the world
(Castells, 1997).
For many, globalization of everyday life means working closely with
people from different parts of the world. Labor markets increasingly cross
regional and national boundaries, increasing migration and diaspora (Held
et al., 1999). It is not uncommon, for example, for a restaurant in Los
Angeles to have cooks from Mexico, executive chefs from France and Chi-
na, and waitpersons from almost any country in the world. Such teams are
collocated and multinational in scope.
An increasingly common form of multinational team is comprised of
people dispersed across different parts of the globe. Advances in deployment
of information and communication technology have made it possible for
knowledge workers to collaborate from distant locations (Mankin & Cohen,
2004). For example, alliances between Asian and European electronics firms
involved in new product development spin off design teams with members
located in the Netherlands, Korea, Japan and the United States. This type of
multinational team spends much of its time communicating via fax, tele-
phone, email, videoconferencing, audioconferencing, intranet, or other
forms of mediated interaction. Such a team is an example of a dispersed
multinational team: any working group or community that includes people
from more than one nation, at least some of whom are not collocated.
Knowledge Resource Sharing in Dispersed Multinational Teams 157
Dispersion means that such teams must rely on mediated rather than face-
to-face communication for their core interactions (DeSanctis & Monge,
1999), and face the opportunities and challenges that accompany commu-
nication via ‘‘leaner’’ media rather than face-to-face interaction (Daft &
Lengel, 1986; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Kock, 2004). Multination-
ality means that the local contexts in which team members are embedded
will be quite different from each other, and cultural norms and expectations
for interaction will differ. Dispersed multinational team members manage
these differences with diminished amounts of shared language, shared cul-
tural context, nonverbal cues and psychological closeness, compared with

the opportunities for interaction that face-to-face communication among
people from the same nation provides.
Dispersed multinational teams may be bounded by one organization (e.g.
a design team for an automotive company with team members in Europe
and Japan, an executive committee of a global food conglomerate), a set of
organizations (e.g. alliance-based software development team with members
in India, Taiwan and the United States, each of whom is from a different
alliance partner), or no organization (e.g. the Linux operating system soft-
ware development community from dozens of countries (Fulk, 2001)). The
lack of a shared organizational context can pose additional challenges for
the latter two types of teams.
This chapter focuses on knowledge resource sharing in dispersed
multinational teams. In a knowledge-intensive global economy, these
teams need to be adept at locating, storing, allocating, and retrieving
knowledge resources for their individual and collective work. In this
chapter, we use the term knowledge resources to refer to data, information,
and knowledge. Data are raw facts out of context. Information is data in
the context of people, technology, and other organizational aspects to which
the data relate. Knowledge is information combined with personal
experience, insights, beliefs, and lessons learned (Nonaka, 1994;
Hollingshead, Fulk, & Monge, 2002). The goal of this chapter is to apply
theories of knowledge-resource sharing to the dispersed multinational team
context.
The central questions we address in this chapter are: What explanations
can existing theories provide about how dispersed multinational teams
manage the flow of their knowledge resources? What factors and interven-
tions influence knowledge resource distribution in the dispersed
multinational team’s collective knowledge commons? How do dispersed
multinational teams evolve their knowledge resource sharing practices
over time?
KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES AND STRUCTURES IN

MULTINATIONAL TEAMS
The knowledge resource-sharing task involves at least three aspects. The
first aspect is distribution of knowledge resources across locations, team
members, and data repositories. We use the term knowledge resource struc-
ture to refer to this distribution, including the knowledge sharing processes
that achieve it. Two key aspects of knowledge resource structures are the
extent of centralization and the degree of redundancy. At one extreme,
knowledge resources can be centralized in a single person or knowledge
repository that is accessible to all team members at their individual loca-

tions. Anyone who needs a knowledge resource can obtain it from that
person or repository, and anyone who independently obtained a knowledge
resource can send it to that person or repository. At the other extreme,
knowledge resources can be decentralized such that each member of the
team possesses them. In between these alternatives are a variety of models of
heterogeneity as to what knowledge resources each member and each
repository possess (Hollingshead, 2001). For example, in order to reduce
misunderstandings arising from different multinational team members hav-
ing access to different information, an organization might create a central-
ized repository to be employed by the team. Software programs such as
Metaphases offer a shared ‘‘vault’’ where members of multinational prod-
uct design teams deposit their in-process designs to make them accessible to
other team members.
For knowledge resource structures that are not fully centralized, there can
be different degrees of redundancy in the knowledge stores possessed by
each individual and repository. At one extreme is total redundancy, where
everyone knows the same things across all contexts and nations. The pri-
mary goal of the knowledge-sharing process is to ensure that new knowledge
resources are shared with everyone in every nation. The opposite alternative
is differentiation, where individuals possess different knowledge resources
that are focused on their own areas of expertise. Individuals share knowl-
edge resources with each other in ways that maintain their specializations.
Between these extremes are models with differing levels of redundancy
across a range of knowledge holders. For example, in dispersed multina-
tional teams, each national subgroup is likely to have local knowledge that is
nonredundant with what other national subgroups possess with regard to
local organizational conditions, language, laws, customs, and practices. A
lack of total redundancy in dispersed multinational teams can mean that
they benefit from the efficiencies of a division of labor in knowledge resource
sharing. We employ transactive memory theory to explicate knowledge

resource structures for dispersed multinational teams (Brandon & Hollings-
head, 2004; Hollingshead, 1998a, b, c, 2000, 2001; Hollingshead & Brandon,
2003; Hollingshead, Fulk, & Monge, 2002; Liang, Moreland, & Argote,
1995; Moreland, Argote, & Krishnan, 1996; Wegner, 1987; Wegner,
Giuliano, & Hertel, 1985; Wegner, Erber, & Raymond, 1991).
The second aspect of knowledge resource sharing is motivating individuals
to share knowledge resources with appropriate others in alignment with
the multinational team’s overall knowledge structure. We argue in subse-
quent sections that knowledge resource structures are the common property
of the dispersed multinational team, created by collective action among the
team members; they are distributed knowledge commons. As such, they are
subject to some of the same incentives and disincentives toward participa-
tion as are other types of ‘‘public goods.’’ For example, it may be difficult to
mobilize team members in different nations to voluntarily contribute their
personal information to a newly developing project website because con-
tribution of information can be costly, and there may be little benefit when
the website is in its nascent stage. However, if the website can be jump-
started with valuable information that is relevant to the different local
contexts of the members, there may be valuable incentives toward partic-
ipation in such knowledge sharing that are self-sustaining. Theories of
collective action and public goods guide our theorizing on this aspect (Fulk,
Heino, Flanagin, Monge, & Bar, 2004; Fulk, Flanagin, Kalman, & Ryan,
1996; Monge et al., 1998; Marwell & Oliver, 1993; Olson, 1965; Samue-
lson, 1954).
The third aspect of knowledge resource sharing recognizes that knowl-
edge resource structures and motivations are dynamic and respond to their
own internal processes. Knowledge resource sharing evolves as the dispersed
multinational team experiences variations in team member experiences and
selects new structures for knowledge sharing that capitalize on their diverse
perspectives. Knowledge resource structures and motivations also respond
to team members’ embedding national and organizational contexts and at
the same time influence those embedding contexts. For example, a multi-
national team may benefit substantially from the diversity of options for
organizing its knowledge work made available as a result of differences
across team members that are based in divergent cultural expectations and
experiences with knowledge sharing. Theories of evolution (Aldrich, 1999;
Baum, 1999; Campbell, 1965; Kontopoulos, 1993; Monge & Contractor,
2003) offer important insights into the dynamics of knowledge resource
sharing in dispersed multinational teams.
We begin our presentation by applying the theoretical lens of transactive

memory theory to understand knowledge resource structures in dispersed
multinational teams. We then explicate a collective action theory lens to
assess motivational aspects of participation in knowledge resource struc-
tures. We then introduce our third lens, evolutionary theory, to assess the
dynamics of dispersed multinational team knowledge resource sharing. In
the process, we draw on extant research that bears upon the ability of these
three lenses to explain knowledge resource sharing in dispersed multina-
tional teams. These theories, in combination, suggest a variety of mecha-
nisms for managing the challenges and opportunities confronting dispersed

multinational teams. The final section highlights the lessons learned from
applying these three theories and related research to the specific case of
teams that are both globally dispersed and multinational in composition.
LENS 1: KNOWLEDGE RESOURCE STRUCTURES AS

TRANSACTIVE MEMORY
The structure and sharing of knowledge resources in multinational teams

can be thought of as a transactive memory system (Wegner, 1987). A trans-
active memory system comprises a network of interconnected people and
the transfer of knowledge resources among them. The transfer of knowledge
resources among members of transactive memory systems can be direct, for
example, through interpersonal interactions. It can also be indirect, i.e. via a
knowledge repository (database): members provide their knowledge
resources to a repository and then others access these resources through
the repository. All members in effective transactive memory systems have
unique knowledge and expertise that is useful for the team, all have accurate
and commonly shared maps of how knowledge is distributed within the
team, and all participate in the system (Brandon & Hollingshead, 2004).
Participation means that members share their unique knowledge and
expertise with others in the system as well as acquire others’ unique con-
tributions.
The general idea underlying transactive memory is that teams often
develop an implicit structure for assigning responsibility for different
knowledge areas to members. Assignment is typically based on team mem-
bers’ shared perceptions of others’ expertise. As a result, each member be-
comes an expert and is uniquely responsible for a part of the team’s
knowledge. Knowledge resource sharing is required for members to gain
access to knowledge held by other members. This division of responsibility

reduces the amount of knowledge for which each individual team member is
responsible, yet provides all members with access to a larger pool of knowl-
edge collectively. Transactive memory systems reduce excessive redundancy
and make it unnecessary for each person to know everything. Studies have
shown that teams with transactive memory systems perform their tasks and
make decisions much more effectively than those who do not because
members are better able to identify experts and make better use of expert
knowledge (e.g. Hollingshead, 1998a, b, c, 2000; Liang, Moreland, &
Argote, 1995; Moreland, Argote, & Krishnan, 1996; Wegner et al., 1991).
Transactive memory systems become operational when team members
learn something about one another’s domains of expertise (Wegner, 1987).
Over time, as individuals learn about one another’s relative expertise, they
begin to specialize more in their own areas of expertise and expect others to
do the same (Hollingshead, 1998b, 2000; Wegner, Erber, & Raymond,
1991). Thus, knowledge becomes more distributed and less redundant
among individuals in the system. Levels of shared or ‘‘integrated’’ knowl-
edge increase as well, as individuals develop a shared conceptualization of
‘‘who knows what’’ and ‘‘who does what.’’
Transactive memory systems often develop informally and implicitly
through interaction rather than by any formal design. Members can learn
informally about one another’s expertise through interactions and shared
experiences identifying likely experts in different areas (Hollingshead,
1998b; Wegner, 1987). Informal interactions and shared experiences pro-
vide opportunities for team members to hear about members’ backgrounds
and credentials, to observe members’ skills in action, to indicate their in-
terests and preferences, to coordinate who does what, and to evaluate the
willingness of team members to participate in the transactive memory sys-
tem. Those systems set up by formal design (such as a listing of job
responsibilities of staff members in an office procedures handbook) are ei-
ther validated or modified over time as team members discover incompetent
or uncooperative members (Brandon & Hollingshead, 2004).
Intranets can help members of distributed work teams to learn about the
expertise and knowledge of others in their organization. Related technol-
ogies can also identify experts and their communication links; these include
expert directories, postings of formal job descriptions and/or responsibi-
lities, search engines for information and expertise, expertise inference sys-
tems (capture and analysis of activities such as who attended meetings on a
particular topic, who participated in which forum, etc.), or ‘‘community-
ware,’’ tools to generate visual representations of knowledge and
communication networks based on information voluntarily shared by

individuals (e.g., I-KNOW; Contractor, Zink, & Chan, 1998; Hollingshead
et al., 2002).
A directory-sharing computer network is a useful metaphor for illustrat-
ing the three key processes of transactive memory systems (Wegner, 1995).
The first process is directory updating, whereby team members learn about
and develop a directory or map of where knowledge on different topics is
located. The second process is information allocation, where new informa-
tion that comes into the team is communicated to the person whose exper-
tise will facilitate its storage. The third process is retrieval coordination,
which is a strategy for retrieving needed information on any topic based on
who is expected to have it.
However, unlike the literal and straightforward ways that computer net-
works update directories and locate, store, and retrieve information, trans-
active memory systems among human agents are often flawed. Members do
not always have accurate maps of where knowledge is located. For example,
team members may be assigned areas of expertise on the basis of social
stereotypes, which may be inaccurate (Hollingshead & Fraidin, 2003). The
maps some members have may be different from the maps of other mem-
bers, depending on factors like the length of time they have been on the
team, the frequency of their interactions, the nature of their relationships
with other team members, and their position in the organizational hierar-
chy. New information may not be communicated to the person who is
responsible for that topic, owing to neglect, distrust, or an inaccurate map.
Members who are expected to know may not have that information or may
choose not to provide it when asked. These problems can be exacerbated in
distributed teams and be even more problematic in distributed teams that
are also multinational.
Opportunities and Challenges for Dispersed Multinational Teams
Lack of proximity increases the challenges facing knowledge resource shar-

ing and transactive memory systems (Kraut, Fussell, Brennan, & Siegel,
2002). Collocated teams have greater opportunities than distributed teams
to assess the knowledge and abilities of their team members and to establish
the social bonding that promotes trust and cooperation (Nardi & Whittaker,
2002). Formal events such as planned meetings and informal interactions
such as chance encounters and social gatherings are more likely to take place
among collocated team members (Kraut et al., 2002; Nardi & Whittaker,
2002). Not only do collocated team members have more interactions with
other members, they also have more opportunities to passively observe and
monitor other members at work, which can lead to more accurate evalu-
ations of the knowledge and abilities of others. Dispersed multinational
teams are not only likely to passively observe less frequently, but, when they
do have an opportunity to observe, they are likely to lack a shared inter-
pretation of observed behavior due to national and cultural differences.
Sharing a common physical space helps team members to feel connected and
interdependent, promotes group cohesion (Nardi & Whittaker, 2002), and
offers the opportunity to resolve differences in interpretation via direct

communication among team members.
Many types of awareness play a role in successful collaborations (Kraut
et al., 2002). The lack of proximity in distributed work teams inhibits the
team members’ awareness of their task and their progress. It is difficult to
monitor the activities of team members, chart the progress of members, and
figure out the status of the task as a whole as well as how the different parts
of the task fit together when members are remote. Impromptu meetings
become nearly impossible because it is difficult for members to determine
the availability of others for a synchronous teleconference. These difficulties
can impede task coordination, task completion, and members’ satisfaction
with both the process and the quality of their collective work.
Working across locations and nations typically reduces the situational in-
formation and awareness that team members have about one another (Cram-
ton, 2002). This can also affect how team members make attributions about
the causes underlying others’ behaviors. Distributed work teams are more
likely than collocated teams to attribute members’ negative behaviors to per-
sonal traits rather than situations (Cramton, 2002). For example, a distri-
buted team member’s belated email response might be interpreted as laziness
(personal trait) rather than as busyness (situational). Of course, neither at-
tribution may apply, since different national cultures have different norms for
how quickly to respond to email or whether to answer work communications
on weekends (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Kirkman et al., 2002). Personal
rather than situational attributions are particularly likely when the group is
composed of subgroups, as might be the case in dispersed multinational teams
when two or more members are collocated (cf. Hewstone, 1990; Cramton,
2002). When this happens, trust and cooperation are likely to break down
among members, and knowledge resource sharing is likely to decrease. In
contrast, when members are collocated, there is more situational information
and evidence available to make an accurate evaluation regarding the inten-
tions and causes underlying others’ negative behaviors.
Much of the interaction in distributed work teams takes place using

communication media such as the phone, email, instant messaging, and
teleconferencing. Communication media provide different affordances that
shape communication and knowledge resource sharing (Clark & Brennan,
1990). As a result, communication media also incur grounding costs
regarding how efficiently team members can exchange evidence about what
they do or do not understand over the course of a conversation (Clark &
Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986). These grounding costs include initiating a conversa-
tion, planning and producing a message, receiving and understanding it, and
correcting misunderstandings (Kraut et al., 2002). Although lack of physical

proximity does not inhibit team members from exchanging information,
face-to-face conversations incur fewer grounding costs than other commu-
nication media.
The dispersion of team members across different local and national con-
texts also means that members can bring a valued diversity to a transactive
memory system by importing a variety of different context-specific infor-
mation that would not be available to a collocated team. A host of studies of
such groups has demonstrated that if a group can harness diversity, it often
promotes improved problem-solving (Hollingshead et al., 2005).
At the same time, differences in norms, languages, and members’ expe-
riences with other cultures can reduce the accuracy with which dispersed
multinational team members judge each others’ expertise, and can thus
impede the development of transactive memory systems. For example,
norms in work teams regarding participation (e.g. are low-status members
encouraged to contribute their opinions during important group decisions?)
and dissent (e.g. is it appropriate for members to disagree with statements
made by high-status members?) often vary across cultures. Attributions
about the reasons underlying the behavior of members may also vary across
cultures. For example, some cultures may view low levels of participation
among low-status members as being appropriately deferential, whereas
other cultures may view it as a sign of incompetence, indifference, or
unwillingness to cooperate.
Members may not share a common first language; those communicating
in their second or third language may not appear as knowledgeable or
skilled as those communicating in their first language and may be evaluated
as less knowledgeable or competent. Some members may have limited
experience with the culture of some team members, and, as a result, may be
predisposed to using cultural stereotypes to infer the knowledge and com-
petence of those members, which can be inaccurate (cf. Hollingshead &
Fraidin, 2003). These potential sources of misperception not only hinder
transactive memory development, knowledge resource sharing and group

performance, but they can also create resentment, dampen group cohesion,
impede the development of member relationships, and inhibit the ability of
the team to work together in the future.
Transactive memory research suggests that it is not team membership
itself that instigates the development of transactive memory, but rather,
interdependence with others (Hollingshead, 1998a, b; Moreland, 1999;
Wegner et al., 1991). This occurs because the outcomes of interdependent
team members are tied to the performance of others on their team. Trans-
active memory systems are unlikely to develop if members are not inter-
dependent or do not perceive themselves to be interdependent (Brandon &
Hollingshead, 2004). Members in distributed multinational teams may have
difficulty perceiving interdependence when team members’ compensation
and incentives are determined by the local office, or when norms in one or
more of the local offices promote competition and withholding of informa-
tion rather than cooperation and knowledge sharing.
Unfortunately, most multinational work teams have little opportunity to
interact or work together in a collocated setting. To support communication
and knowledge sharing in distributed multinational work teams, organiza-
tions have implemented a variety of information technologies, such as
intranets, with varying degrees of success (Townsend, DeMarie, & Hend-
rickson, 1998). The challenge is to motivate distributed multinational teams
to use intranets and other technologies for knowledge resource sharing.
Although intranets are the most frequently implemented knowledge man-
agement system, they are often highly underutilized for more interactive
tasks such as knowledge resource sharing, which depends on document
exchange or databases that are jointly maintained by groups (Head, 2000).
The next section on motivating participation addresses this issue in detail.
LENS 2: MOTIVATING PARTICIPATION IN

KNOWLEDGE RESOURCE STRUCTURES
We have argued that transactive memory is the shared distribution of cog-

nitive labor in the encoding, storage, retrieval, and communication of
knowledge resources. Another way to interpret this is that a transactive
memory structure functions as a distributed knowledge commons. The com-
mons includes two types of distributed knowledge storage: connective and
communal (Fulk et al., 1996). Connective storage occurs when knowledge
resources are indexed to specific locations. The location often is a person

(‘‘Amin knows how to install that software’’), but could also be nonhuman
(the installation manual). Communal storage is a shared repository of (a)
knowledge resources themselves (e.g. databases, websites, bulletin boards,
etc.) or (b) knowledge resources in connective storage (e.g. expert directo-
ries). The benefit of communal storage is that contributors need not know a
priori either who might need their particular knowledge resource contribu-
tion or who might retrieve it from the commons. Similarly, retrievers need
not know in advance who might possess needed knowledge resources, or
who might be willing to share them. Communal storage of knowledge

resources themselves is often nonhuman (e.g. project websites) but might
also be human (e.g. project historians). Communal repositories of expertise
location information may also be nonhuman (e.g. expert directories) or
human (‘‘Kim knows who would know about that topic or which manual
has the answer.’’).
What motivates dispersed multinational team members to voluntarily
participate in distributed knowledge commons? In this section, we review
theory and research that address the motivational issues regarding partic-
ipation in distributed knowledge commons. In the paragraphs that follow,
we discuss seven mechanisms that can influence these motivational proc-
esses: supplemental incentives, public goods transformations, distribution of
labor, mobilizers, supportive communication systems, prior member ties,
and visibility enhancements.
The knowledge commons in both connective and communal storage can
be viewed as a shared ‘‘public good’’ for a dispersed multinational team to
the extent that it meets two classic criteria (Hardin, 1982; Fulk et al., 1996):
Nonexcludability: No team member is prevented from using the collective
knowledge resources.
Nonrivalry: One team member’s use does not diminish the availability of
the knowledge resources to others.
The incentives arising from nonexcludability encourage people to ‘‘free
ride’’ on the contributions of others without contributing themselves – at
least in situations when contribution costs exceed the value of the distri-
buted knowledge commons to the individual (Fulk, Heino, Flanagin, Mon-
ge, & Bar, 2004). Assuming that people are motivated to minimize cost and
maximize gain, this incentive structure leads to ‘‘communication dilemmas’’
(Bonacich & Schneider, 1992): the team’s interests require that people share
their unique knowledge resources, but individuals’ own personal interests
motivate them to avoid costly sharing by withholding them. The implication
is that knowledge resources will be undershared when individuals themselves

must pay extensive sharing costs.
Two solutions are proposed by Kalman, Monge, Fulk, and Heino (2002).
The first is a ‘‘cooperation contingent transformation’’ (Kerr, 1992) to pro-
vide external incentives to share knowledge resources or disincentives to
withhold them. This transformation aligns the individual’s private interests
with those of the team. The approach has the advantage of being applicable
across situations, including those where members are not committed to
collective success. In a properly indexed transactive memory system, it will
be clear who should be acquiring and sharing what types of knowledge

resources, which can facilitate the application of incentives. However,
external incentives also have a number of drawbacks (Fulk et al., 2004).
They require that someone invest in policing team member behavior. Con-
nective storage should be easier to monitor than communal storage because
the knowledge resource requirements in connective storage are linked to
specific individuals or data sources. Monitoring will be easier where com-
munal storage identifies contributors and retrievers than when participation
is anonymous. External incentives are hard to apply to knowledge resource
sharing that is unidentifiable (e.g. communal stores that do not identify the
contributors and track utilization of the stores), invisible (e.g. tacit knowl-
edge), and not readily amenable to monitoring (e.g. nonexperts cannot
easily monitor the competence of supposed experts). Incentive structures
may lead to overabundance of low-quality knowledge resource sharing
(Connolly & Thorn, 1990). As Kim and Mauborgne (1997, p. 67) note,
Unlike the traditional factors of production – land, labor, and capital – knowledge is a
resource locked in the human mind. Creating and sharing knowledge are intangible
activities that can neither be supervised nor forced out of people.
Two additional concerns are specific to dispersed multinational teams. The

first is the need to overcome inherent tendencies for individuals to respond
to immediate local needs rather than the needs of the dispersed multi-
national team. There will be a variety of incentives or disincentives to par-
ticipate in team level knowledge resource sharing that are extant in the local
context and within the control of team members in other contexts. The
second is the challenge of administering an equitable supplemental incentive
system that is sensitive to the different national and organizational contexts
in which the different team members operate.
A second approach to resolving communication dilemmas is a ‘‘public
goods transformation’’ (Kerr, 1992), which aims to build identification with
the team. With such transformation, each team member comes to value the
collective benefit provided by the distributed knowledge commons. This

approach should lead team members to self-monitor and to contribute high-
quality knowledge resources, as long as team members see the transactive
memory structure as beneficial to the team as a whole (Kalman et al., 2002).
Weber (2004) adds that success in dispersed multinational open source
communities is facilitated by shared beliefs about how knowledge resources
should be treated (e.g. ‘‘information should be free’’), and how interpersonal
relationships should be managed. Multinational teams face cross-cultural
hurdles in their efforts to build shared identities when dispersed team mem-
bers come from different cultures. This challenge is increased when team
members also lack physical proximity, as noted earlier. However, the suc-
cesses in open source software development suggest that such challenges are
not insurmountable.
Weber’s (2004) in-depth research in the open-source community suggests
that success rests on yet a third mechanism: reliance on distribution rather
than division of labor. Division of labor is assigned by an entity in corre-
spondence to a task’s complexity; individuals cannot choose not to parti-
cipate. Division of labor is ‘‘consciously organized [and] enforced’’ (p. 62).
By contrast, distribution of labor occurs when individuals are free to choose
what knowledge resources to contribute or what tasks to work on. Distri-
buted labor involves ‘‘voluntary participation and voluntary selection of
tasks’’ (p. 62). Dispersed multinational teams are likely to vary tremen-
dously in the degree to which they have the license to rely more heavily on
distribution rather than division of labor. The open-source community has
considerable license, whereas a corporate software development team may
be more constrained by organizational requisites. Most dispersed multi-
national teams will have some combination of divided and distributed labor.
One way that distributed labor helps to overcome motivational challenges
is by enabling individuals to freely choose tasks and knowledge areas that
are fulfilling to them. This choice offers intrinsic motivation, investment in a
relevant task, and a sense of personal efficacy (Kollock, 1999; Weber, 2004).
However, any organized endeavor has some required tasks and knowledge
responsibilities that are not fulfilling in these ways. What motivates people
to assume those tasks? Lakhani and von Hippel (2003) studied the ‘‘mun-
dane but necessary task’’ of providing user support in the open-source
environment, a task that requires seeking, creating, and sharing knowledge
resources with others in the community. They found that the process of
seeking information to benefit others yielded substantial learning benefits to
the helper. The additional 2% of effort to actually compose an answer to a
request for knowledge resources was a very small cost.
Reciprocity offers an additional explanation for attention to mundane but

necessary tasks and knowledge resources. Three types of reciprocity are
relevant: direct exchange, generalized exchange, and communal exchange.
Direct exchange occurs when one transaction is directly balanced against
another transaction. Exchanges in transactive memory structures often
occur through dyadic communication (allocation and retrieval), by means of
which specialized knowledge resources are directly exchanged among team
members as needed across all knowledge areas, including mundane but
necessary ones. Direct exchange can also characterize the expertise assump-
tion process, in which the team members directly negotiate who will take
responsibility for which knowledge resource areas, including an equitable
split of the mundane but necessary ones.
The second type of reciprocity in transactive memory systems is based on
generalized exchange (Ekeh, 1974), in which team members allocate knowledge
to different persons than those from whom they retrieve knowledge resources.
Any single allocation or retrieval is not directly reciprocal, but the system is
balanced on the whole in that each team member retrieves and allocates eq-
uitably. Indeed, generalized exchange is critical for transactive memory sys-
tems, because the distribution of knowledge stores and expertise should match
the overall team task rather than any single pair of team members. Thus,
Brandon and Hollingshead (2004) argue that in well-developed transactive
memory systems, people and knowledge will be linked to specific tasks.
The third type of transaction is communal exchange, in which the parties
to the exchange need not know (a) each other, (b) who has what knowledge
resources, or (c) who needs what knowledge resources. The communal re-
pository mediates the exchange. Communal stores can offer net benefits that
motivate participation because even though individuals contribute only their
own modest knowledge resources, they acquire access to the larger amounts
of combined knowledge resources that many others have contributed
(Weber, 2004). Communal exchange is highly important in dispersed mul-
tinational teams that experience many changes in team membership since
contributions can endure beyond the term of membership of an individual.
Indeed, Kalman et al. (2002) found that motivations to contribute to com-
munal stores were enhanced when individuals envisioned how these stores
might be beneficial to future team members. Communal exchange also
occurs asynchronously, in that contributions of knowledge resources occur
at different times from retrievals. Asynchronicity facilitates both contri-
bution and retrieval behavior for dispersed multinational teams in different
locations and time zones, thus helping to sustain the overall transactive
memory system.
Other collective action literature suggests a fourth mechanism for

encouraging participation. Motivation to participate is enhanced through-
out a group when a subset is willing to bear the costs of organizing it
(Samuelson, 1954). In the open-source community, Linus Torvalds and a
core of dedicated followers play such a role (Moon & Sproull, 2002), and a
core group acted similarly for the Apache web server (Lakhani & von Hip-
pel, 2003). Intel’s team members assumed this role for the SEMATECH
alliance (Browning, Beyer, & Shetler, 1995; Monge et al., 1998). Flanagin et
al. (2001) found that mobilization efforts can provide some benefits for the
mobilizers by providing more central and powerful positions in the group

once the communal knowledge repository had been produced. Thus, theory
and research suggest that when one or more individuals in a dispersed mul-
tinational team can envision individual benefits from helping to mobilize a
transactive memory structure, their efforts may help to overcome the wider
motivational challenge. Like any public good, a transactive memory system
should become self-sustaining once organizers help it reach a critical point in
its development. This state occurs because the costs of participation by other
individuals are outweighed by the benefits those individuals can acquire
from access to a system that is already, at least partly, up and running.
Mobilization of communal knowledge stores such as project websites,
shared databases, web boards, expertise directories, and expert databases
can be especially beneficial for dispersed multinational teams.
Research on collective action identifies a fifth mechanism to support trans-
active memory structures in dispersed multinational teams: effective commu-
nication systems. Research has shown that collective action is much more likely
when members of the collective are able to communicate directly with each
other (Marwell & Oliver, 1993). Communication is the mechanism by which
people can recognize shared interests, build commitment, and organize their
efforts toward collective goals. Communication is also a critical component of
transactive memory systems (Hollingshead & Brandon, 2003; Hollingshead,
1998a). It is a primary means of allocating and retrieving information across
team members and updating expertise directories. For dispersed multinational
teams, access to a shared platform for direct communication is important
(Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk, & McPherson, 2002), as are team member
skills in using the medium (Fulk & Collins-Jarvis, 2000; Schmitz & Fulk, 1991;
Yuan, et al., 2005). For example, the open-source community relies extensively
on the Internet in coordinating its activities (Weber, 2004). In addition, some
face-to-face communication is valuable for dispersed teams at regular intervals
(Kirkman et al., 2002) and especially in the early stages of team formation
(Kraut, Galegher, & Egido, 1990).
A sixth consideration in facilitating collective generation and maintenance

of transactive memory structures is the influence of preexisting ties among
team members. From a transactive memory perspective, people who know
each other are better at expertise recognition than strangers (Hollingshead,
1998c). Groups are better at assessing task-relevant expertise and assigning
tasks to the appropriate experts if the members have prior experience with
similar tasks (Littlepage, Robison, & Reddington, 1997). Groups who know
each other rely on fewer stereotypes in making assessments of expertise
(Hollingshead, 1998c) and in evaluating the credibility of others’ assertions
of expertise (Hollingshead 1998a). Where dispersed multinational teams in-

clude people from different cultures, prior ties can supplant cultural ster-
eotypes as a source of inferencemaking about others’ skills, abilities, and
motivations (cf. Fraidin & Hollingshead, 2004). Dispersed teams should find
it easier to build shared norms and commitment when team members are
not strangers (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). Given that dispersed multina-
tional teams may tend to include strangers, one strategy is to initiate the
team with face-to-face team building exercises to develop experience and
knowledge with each other (Kirkman et al., 2002). Similarly, when adding
new members to a team, it can be helpful to seek those who already have
some ties with at least some members of the team.
A final issue is the hidden vs. overt nature of cooperative behavior of team
members. The early collective action literature produced a conflicting and
puzzling set of findings. In some studies, large groups were more successful
than small groups, but in other studies, small groups were more successful.
The answer to the question, ‘‘does group size matter?’’ was very unclear.
Olson (1965) argued that it was not group size that made the difference, but
rather the visibility of an individual’s cooperation or defection. Large
groups could succeed if their members’ choices were made visible to all, and
small groups could fail in the absence of transparency. In face-to-face col-
located teams, members may find it difficult to hide their failure to deliver
their commitments to a transactive memory system. The reduced visibility of
dispersed multinational teams inhibits both monitoring of participation and
the development of interpersonal trust that could otherwise reduce the need
for such monitoring (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). For such teams, creating
mechanisms to enhance the visibility of cooperative and noncooperative
behavior may be beneficial.
No single response to the motivational challenge of the distributed
knowledge commons is likely to be conclusive. Rather, dispersed multi-
national teams will need to experiment with a variety of different mecha-
nisms, including the ones described above: supplemental incentives, public
goods transformations, distributions of labor, mobilizers, supportive com-

munication systems, prior member ties, and visibility enhancements. The flip
side of the motivational challenge is the motivational boost created once a
knowledge sharing system has reached the tipping point of critical mass.
From that point onward, the knowledge sharing processes should be self-
sustaining, and should not require supplemental incentives. Indeed, once a
critical mass of team contributions has been secured, motivation to partic-
ipate should rise dramatically.
As the team develops and changes over time, its motivational mechanisms
will need to evolve as well, both in relation to intrateam changes as well as in

relation to changes in their broader contexts. The next section considers
such evolution in transactive memory structures, drawing on the theoretical
contributions of evolutionary organization theory.
LENS 3: THE EVOLUTION OF DISPERSED

MULTINATIONAL TRANSACTIVE MEMORY
COMMUNITIES
Dispersed multinational organizational teams and their associated transac-
tive memories can be usefully conceptualized, at least in part, as populations
of transactive memory structures that emerge, transform, and eventually
expire according to the principles of sociocultural evolutionary theory
(Baum & Rowley, 2002; Campbell, 1960). In combination, these transactive
memories acquire, store, transform, retrieve, and put into practice organ-
izational knowledge. They contain the facts, routines, and innovations that
constitute organizational capabilities and institutional competencies (Nelson
& Winter, 1982). Conceptualizing transactive memory structures in
dispersed multinational teams as elements of populations that exist within
a broader evolutionary ecology sheds interesting new insights on managing
change in dispersed multinational teams. Populations of transactive memory
structures do not exist in isolation. Rather, they coexist with other popu-
lations in ecological communities that share the same or similar resource
bases. Communities evolve just as do populations and individual transactive
memory systems (Astley, 1985; Hunt & Aldrich, 1998). Various people dis-
persed around multinational organizations share similar knowledge capa-
bilities that permit their classification as a population. Thus, many
automobile manufacturers have workers with skills that can be assigned
to automotive design teams. The people in this population possess unique
knowledge that they can either cooperatively contribute or competitively

withhold from their teams. Similarly, different populations of multinational
teams exist in most multinational organizations, comprising the next level of
the ecological context. Different populations of teams that specialize in one
type of work process must collaborate and compete with populations of
other teams that specialize in other work processes. For example, design
teams must deal with populations of engineering teams and manufacturing
or assembly teams. Finally, the multinational organizations that comprise
these populations of transactive memory teams and people must themselves
fit into their larger community. From the perspective of an organization

containing a population of diverse multinational transactive memory teams,
this community comprises the population of other firms in the auto-man-
ufacturing business (i.e. their competitors, which also have their own
populations of dispersed, multinational transactive memory teams), the
population of potential buyers in their niche of the overall market
population, the population of standards-setting organizations, the popula-
tion of government regulators, the population of advertisers, etc. Taken
together, it is a very complex community.
Evolutionary development at all levels is governed by three fundamental
processes: variation, selection, and retention (Aldrich, 1999; Campbell,
1960, 1965). Transactive memories are created when these processes operate
to conjoin the already existing individual knowledge elements and to create
new knowledge. Variations in knowledge elements occur both randomly
and by design (Romanelli, 1999; Miner, 1994). People discover new facts,
ideas, and ways of doing things by random exposure to the world of facts,
ideas, and ways of doing things. Although people determine to some
extent the venues to which they are exposed, they seldom have extensive
preexisting knowledge of what they will actually learn. An example of this
is the voluntary user support team for the Apache web server, an
open-source developer community. The support team members learned
new things that they could not have predicted ahead of time through
the simple process of seeking answers to other users’ questions (Lakhani
& von Hippel, 2003). Variations also occur as people systematically
explore their knowledge sources for information about facts, ideas,
and new procedures. Often, this means identifying relevant sources
such as colleagues and competitors to see what they know and what seems
to be working well for them (Schultz, 2002, 2003). Imitation or mimetic
learning is a primary method by which new knowledge gets incorporated
into existing memory systems (Mezias & Lant, 1994; Miner & Ragh-
avan, 1999).
Selection of knowledge elements involves choosing one or more variations

over the others. In transactive memories, individual variations may be
straightforward as when known facts, such as telephone numbers or email
addresses change. In this case, the selection processes of the memory system
need to do little other than to update the existing knowledge with the new
variation in the relevant location or expertise directories and repositories.
However, when multiple variations exist, the system needs to determine
which variations, if any, to select, and which to ignore. For example, a
dispersed multinational top management team scanning its environment to
see what strategies its competitors are using might discover three distinct
alternatives. At that point, the top management team may select one strat-
egy to mimic or may generate a new strategy. Sometimes the selection is
made on the basis of what are believed to be rational criteria. At other times,
trial and error, best guess hunches, or random choice provide the basis for
selection (Romanelli, 1999). It is important to remember, however, that not
all selection mechanisms are beneficial (Campbell, 1994). An interesting
example of this is Weber’s (2004) assertion that the larger and more complex
the collective task, such as the creation of the Linux operating system by a
dispersed multinational community of volunteer code writers, the more
variations (optional codings) will be produced, and the number of dysfunc-
tional variations (inefficient or incorrect codings) to be considered in the
selection process will be larger.
Retention of knowledge elements involves processes that preserve the
variations that selection processes select. Nelson and Winter (1982) describe
in considerable detail how selected variations are incorporated into organ-
izational routines and thereby preserved. Selected variations that are re-
tained in codified, written form typically leave traces that chronicle the
evolution of knowledge. Weber’s (2004) study of the Linux community
illustrates an interesting way for a dispersed multinational team to manage
the delicate selection and retention processes. Retention of dysfunctional
code could pose serious problems for the software as a whole since there are
complex interactions among the parts of the code. For Linux, a core set of
individuals decides which of the vast multitude of variations created by
community members will be retained through incorporation into the core
program. An individual is free to use any unretained variation, giving
proper credit to the originator, and to create an alternative version of the
core program. No individual ‘‘owns’’ any part of the knowledge base, either
core or peripheral. However, having your variation retained in the core is
highly valuable because of the impact on the large user base, so most
programmers elect to try to work in ways that ensure that their variations
are incorporated into the core program. As a consequence, there are few
competing versions of the software, and the selection and retention criteria
for the core serve as the key organizing mechanism.
From an evolutionary perspective, organizational transactive memories
are repositories for changes in organizational knowledge. Amburgey and
Singh (2002) observe that ‘‘the intellectual tension between questions of
stability and questions of change permeate the social sciences in general and
organizational theory in particular’’ (p. 327). Further, they observe that
different scholars have employed different theoretical mechanisms when
studying this tension, ‘‘y specifically the modification of existing entities or

the replacement of existing entities’’ (p. 328). The first of these employ
replicating mechanisms, a form of Lamarckian adaptation, in which changes
are learned by direct and vicarious experience and shared among members
of the current population. The second focuses on mutations and hereditary
changes across time and generations, that is, Darwinian evolution (Amb-
urgey & Singh, 2002). In Darwinian evolution, change only occurs across
generations and as a result of selected mutations that are retained because
they provide superior fitness. Schulz (2002) argues that both processes are
important in the evolution of knowledge, focusing as each does on ‘‘chang-
ing the stock of knowledge, its character, and its distribution over subunits’’
(p. 430).
Campbell (1965 pp. 306–307) pointed out that
y variation and retention system(s) are inherently at odds. Every new mutation rep-
resents a failure of reproduction of prior selected forms. Too high a mutation jeopardizes
the preservation of already achieved adaptations. Mechanisms for curbing the variation
rate arise in evolutionary systems. The more elaborate the achieved adaptation, the more
likely are mutations to be deleterious and, therefore, the stronger are inhibitions on
mutation.
This effect of complexity exactly mirrors that found for variations in the
Linux community (Weber, 2004). Thus, transactive memory systems can be
expected to experience considerable stress as they attempt to balance pres-
sures to retain already selected features with pressures to mutate to different
variations.
Ties and Evolution
The interdependence of relational ties within and between populations of

transactive memories and their organizational communities influence their
evolutionary paths. Ties between populations can be described as either
commensalist or symbiotic (Barnett, 1994). Commensalist ties range from

those that are competitive to those that are cooperative. Symbiotic ties are
mutually beneficial relations (Hawley, 1986). Aldrich (1999, p. 302) provides
a useful typology of these ties, which ranges from full competition, where
growth in one population detracts from growth in the other, to full
mutualism, where the presence of each population is beneficial to the growth
of the other.
In a parallel fashion, these same types of relations can exist among the
members of a population of transactive memory systems. Thus, transactive
memory systems compete and cooperate with each other to obtain scarce
resources. These include, among other things, the attention of people who
comprise the memory, enlarged storage capacities, more efficient processing
abilities, and new partners by which to expand the transactive memory.
Competition for attention, as noted earlier, is likely to be more challenging
for dispersed multinational teams. Lack of regular access and visibility may
disadvantage the team in competing for other organizational resources.
At the community level, Hunt and Aldrich (1998) analyze the World Wide
Web community from an ecological perspective, examining the commensa-
list and symbiotic relations between different organizational populations,
including commercial users, usage promoters, access providers, infrastruc-
ture developers, and core technology developers, such as browser develop-
ers. Other populations in the community include outside participants and
overseers. This analysis suggests that it is important to theorize and analyze
organizational populations, including transactive memories, from a com-
munity ecology perspective, since their existence is highly dependent on
community level processes. For example, the Linux community also has a
number of other key community resources. These include (a) Microsoft,
which serves to mobilize participants as a common enemy (Thomas, 2002) in
a competitive commensalist relationship, (b) open-source supportive organ-
izations, such as the Free Software Foundation, which mobilizes partici-
pants toward a mutualistic relation, (c) other open source developer
communities, such as Apache, which mobilizes participants toward a
cooperative commensalist relation, and (d) the users of the software, who
provide critical feedback (Moon & Sproull, 2002; Weber, 2004) and
mobilize participants toward a mutualistic relationship.
Astley (1985) and Astley and Fombrun (1987) argue that commensalist
and symbiotic linkages within and among populations enable community
members to obtain resources from each other rather than the open envi-
ronmental niche in which they are located. This makes the creation of the
community beneficial to its members. For example, the dispersed
multinational Linux team draws its members from a number of different

knowledge communities, which are represented by the different back-
grounds of the participants and the industries in which they work. Each
brings knowledge resources from his or her own community and makes
them available to the team as a whole. Thus, dispersed multinational teams
may bring specific advantages to their knowledge tasks, especially when
members are from different industrial communities.
Evolution of Forms of Transactive Memories and Knowledge Networks
Under the influence of communities and populations, knowledge resource

sharing evolves in transactive memories. Knowledge resources are almost
always tied to symbols and concepts. Further, the meaning of the symbols
comes from their relationships to one another (Carley, 1986; Minsky, 1975).
This implies that ‘‘knowledge can only be understood within a network of
other knowledge concepts (Carley & Newell, 1994; Lesperance, 1991)’’
(Monge & Contractor, 2003, p. 91).
Transactive memories are built out of two kinds of networks. The first
consists of knowledge networks, which are the connections between knowl-
edge elements in a knowledge domain. Knowledge elements are in trans-
active storage in many different kinds of communal and connective
repositories, as noted earlier, including the minds of people, the routines
that comprise organizational activities, computer databases, and traditional
filing cabinets. Further, each element is related to multiple other elements in
the same or different repository, thus providing the web of meaning. The
second consists of cognitive knowledge networks (Contractor, Zink, & Chan,
1998; Krackhardt, 1987). These networks are the representations that people
and other knowledge processors have of where knowledge elements are
located in the transactive memory (expertise directories), how they are con-
nected to other knowledge elements, and how they are connected to persons
and tasks (TEP units; Brandon & Hollingshead, 2004). Obviously, percep-
tions are limited, incomplete, and sometimes faulty. Any person’s view of
‘‘who knows what’’ in the dispersed team can differ considerably from
others’ views of who knows what, either for specific team members or for
the entire team collectively (Monge & Contractor, 2003).
Each of these networks may assume a variety of forms that transactive
memory systems assume as the networks evolve. Carroll and Hannan (2000)
observe that there are three different approaches to defining and identifying
forms. The first approach is to identify clusters of features, such as
mechanistic versus organic forms of organization (Burns & Stalker, 1962).

The second approach is to identify ‘‘the clarity and strength of social
boundaries’’ (Carroll & Hannan, 2000, p. 62, italics in the original). In this
approach, the boundaries demarcate internal from external processes, there-
by defining the form. The third approach, attributed to DiMaggio (1986), is
‘‘based on identifying discontinuities in patterns of network ties related to
resource flows’’ (Carroll & Hannan, 2000, p. 63, italics in the original). Here,
groups share the same identity if they have similar patterns of connections to
similar others or, in network terms, if they are ‘‘structurally equivalent.’’
Carroll and Hannan’s (2000) own definition of organizational forms

includes all three of these aspects as well as a fourth factor, identity. Iden-
tity has two components: (a) how a group form chooses to label itself; and
(b) how others, both of that form and of different forms, choose to label it.
There are several features that seem to be important candidates for dis-
tinguishing transactive memory forms. One is centralized versus distributed,
as noted earlier. Katz, Lazer, Arrow, and Contractor (2004) reviewed the
published research on the relationship between centralization of communi-
cation of knowledge resources and team functioning. Early laboratory
research using collocated groups found that centralized communication
patterns were linked to more role differentiation and fewer errors when the
group’s task was relatively simple. The benefits of centralization declined as
tasks became more complex. Decentralized structures were linked to better
error detection and correction as well as greater overall enjoyment of the
task. More recent research in field settings has shown mixed support, with
some studies replicating the centralization findings for simpler tasks (Spar-
row, Liden, Wayne, & Kramer (2001), as cited in Katz et al., 2004), and
other studies showing a consistent performance benefit of decentralization
of team communication and knowledge resource sharing (Leavitt & Lip-
man-Blumne, 1995; Lipman-Blumen & Leavitt, 1999; as cited in Katz et al.,
2004), including dispersed multinational teams (Cummings & Cross, 2003,
as cited in Katz et al., 2004).
A second possible dimension is serial versus parallel processing. In the
former, the transactive memory engages in knowledge processing sequen-
tially, i.e. in the order it receives the requests. In the latter, the system can
process multiple requests at the same time. The nature of the task under-
taken by the group is likely to impact the degree to which knowledge
resource sharing can be undertaken in parallel fashion. A classic distinction
is made by Thompson (1967). Tasks that involve pooled interdependence
permit parallel processing, whereas sequential interdependence requires
more serial processing of knowledge resources. Reciprocal interdependence
involves a blend of both types of processing. For dispersed multinational

teams that must process knowledge resources without the benefits of face-to-
face coordination methods, it will be critical to provide support technologies
whose capabilities for serial versus parallel processing match the task-
generated needs of the team (Kumar & van Dissel, 1996).
Obviously, these are only some candidates for a more definitive list, but
they point to the possibility of investigating the evolution of transactive
memory forms by identifying changes in the patterns of their most impor-
tant features, boundaries, network configurations, and identities. One key
question is: how do dispersion and multinationality impact transactive

memory features, boundaries, networks, and identitites, that is, transactive
memory form? Processes of variation, selection, and retention may be
observed at the level of the dimensions of form. Such evolution can be
tracked in relation to changes in types of linkages (symbiotic or comm-
ensalist) among and between populations of transactive memories and the
communities in which they reside.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

A dispersed multinational team is any working group or community that
includes persons from more than one nation, at least some of whom are not
collocated. These teams can exist within or across organizational bound-
aries, or be bounded only by their own choices to participate in a self-
organized community effort. In a knowledge-intensive global economy,
dispersed multinational teams need to be adept at locating, storing, allo-
cating, and retrieving knowledge resources, including data, information, and
knowledge. The three central questions we addressed in this chapter are:
(a) What explanations can existing theories provide about how dispersed
multinational teams manage the flow of their knowledge resources? We
employed transactive memory theory to describe how such teams generate
and sustain a knowledge resource structure; (b) What factors and interven-
tions influence knowledge resource distribution in the dispersed multi-
national team’s collective knowledge commons? We employed collective
action theory to describe motivational aspects of participation in a team’s
knowledge resource structure; (c) How do dispersed multinational teams
evolve their knowledge resource sharing practices over time? We explored
lessons from evolutionary theory to assess this question.
Dispersed multinational teams face a number of challenges to knowledge
resource sharing. Lack of proximity means lessened opportunities for
expertise recognition, assessing the knowledge and abilities of their team

members, assessing credibility of expertise claims, and rapid updating of
directory entries. Errors in allocation and retrieval may be discovered and
repaired more slowly. Dispersion and multinationality make it more difficult
to establish the social bonding that promotes trust, cooperation, and
cohesion, and to maintain situational awareness for the accurate interpre-
tation of members’ behavior. The twin divides of dispersion and nation pose
challenges for developing shared mental models and common underst-
anding, for signaling commitment and making participation visible, for
generally maintaining awareness of their task, and for coordinating the

evolution of team activities and knowledge stores. Virtuality also creates
conditions for potential conflict between the requisites of local colleagues
and those of virtual team members. Dispersed multinationality increases the
likelihood of potential conflicts owing to distinctive national languages,
cultures, and norms at different locations, which might lead to conflicting
interpretations of the same behavior. In addition, human beings exhibit a
propensity to make personal rather than situational attributions to the
behaviors of persons less known to them and different from themselves.
At the same time, dispersed multinational teams can possess unique
opportunities. Diversity of membership can contribute to quality and cre-
ativity of decisions. Positioning of different members in different commu-
nities makes it possible to import divergent knowledge resources into the
team. Seeking the right balance of cooperation and competition can increase
the quality of the transactive memory and the quality of performance.
Exploring new alternatives will probably generate better productive vari-
ations than exploiting existing routines (March, 1991).
In combination, these three theoretical lenses suggested a number of po-
tential ways to facilitate effective knowledge resource sharing in dispersed
multinational teams. The first lens, based on transactive memory theory,
suggests that knowledge resource sharing will be most effective in dispersed
multinational teams when members have accurate knowledge of ‘‘who
knows what’’ in the group, when members have a shared map of where the
knowledge resources are located and when members share their unique
knowledge resources freely with other members (Brandon & Hollingshead,
2004). To reach this ideal state, building interdependence, identity, and
commitment among multinational team members is imperative. When team
members are vested in the team’s long-term success, they will be motivated
to participate effectively.
Managers can jumpstart this difficult process by creating a supportive
environment for dispersed multinational teams. Early team meetings
provide opportunities for members to build interpersonal as well as work

relationships, to learn about each member’s unique knowledge, skills, and
expertise, and to develop a shared roadmap for where knowledge resources
are located and how to access them. They are good occasions for managers
and team members to discuss and establish effective procedures, norms, and
conventions for working together, such as creating a distributed knowledge
commons (shared database) for storing project-related documents and pro-
cedures for organizing and updating documents, setting appropriate times
to call based on time zones, etc.
Face-to-face meetings should be held at regular intervals to evaluate the

team’s progress and processes, and to fix problems. It is best if the location
of face-to-face meetings is rotated among team members’ local offices so
that all team members gain an appreciation of the unique opportunities and
challenges that each member may experience in their local office. Members
who have an understanding of one another’s challenges and good inter-
personal relationships are less likely to make incorrect attributions. Rotat-
ing locations also demonstrates to the team that the organization is not
privileging one location above the rest. If there are large discrepancies
among national offices in terms of support and resources, it may be best for
managers to arrange face-to-face meetings in neutral locations. Otherwise,
competition and resentment may develop among team members who are
from less richly supported locations.
Email often becomes the primary channel of communication among team
members who are in widely separated time zones. But all too many dispersed
multinational teams have found that email is much too lean to be the pri-
mary communication channel. Dispersed multinational teams should also
be provided with rich communication channels, such as videoconferencing,
which approximates face-to-face experience, on a regular basis. Synchro-
nous, rich media are best for discussing complex issues and problems
because members can ask questions to ensure that they understand.
Redundant nonverbal and paraverbal cues reduce the possibility of misun-
derstanding. Even with such support, communication needs to be frequent,
explicit, and interactive. Dispersed multinational teams also need extensive
technical support, which should be calibrated to the type of interdependence
the team faces, supporting serial or parallel processing as and when needed.
When tasks can be modularized, creating pooled interdependence, the de-
mands on coordination and communication can be reduced substantially.
The second lens based on collective action theory suggests that incentives
should be created and applied to counter the tendency to respond primarily
to local demands, and to motivate people to share their resources through
the transactive memory system. The challenges are to make incentives

responsive to national, cultural, and situational differences and to develop
monitoring mechanisms that work at a distance. Theory and research point
to five possible solutions.
The first is that personal or supplemental incentives can be developed for
a subset of the team to encourage them to bear the cost of mobilizing the
group initially. Once the initial costs to set up the structure have been borne,
it will be easier for others to see the benefits of effective participation in the
knowledge resource structure.
Second, visibility enhancement mechanisms can be developed to publicize

and celebrate effective contribution and retrieval. Weber (2004) uses the
label ‘‘reputronics’’ to describe how the economics of reputation contributes
to the success of the Linux community, where contributions of good code
are acknowledged by name and associated with enhanced reputation within
the community. More importantly, no programmer wants to be named as
providing poor code.
Third, communication of clear, consensual criteria for retention of con-
tributions as a part of the transactive memory system should help guide
people to want to participate in the larger system, and discourage people
from taking their knowledge resources elsewhere.
Fourth, dispersed multinational teams should look for opportunities to
transform elements of division of labor into more distribution of labor
(Weber, 2004). Distribution of labor provides for individual choice in the
pursuit of knowledge areas and task responsibility to the greatest extent
possible. This can best be accomplished through face-to-face meetings.
Finally, collective action is more likely when potential participants can
communicate with each other. Teams need to have the resources of tech-
nology, access to external knowledge stores, and time to communicate if
they are to be able to mobilize toward collective action.
The third theoretical lens based on evolutionary theory suggests that
transactive memory systems need to be ready to respond and adapt to
changing environmental conditions. Theory and research from an evolu-
tionary perspective point to several steps that managers can take to prepare
the transactive memory systems of dispersed multinational teams to suc-
cessfully adapt to change.
Teams should create symbiotic and cooperative relationships with other
transactive memory systems as well as other elements in the broader context.
Feedback from clients, users, suppliers, and other elements of the broader
community can point to other sources of resources or beneficial forms for
the transactive memory system to assume. The process of seeking such
feedback in itself is likely to point to promising new variations or selection

mechanisms. Environmental scanning may suggest useful variations
available by imitating other systems’ successes or consciously avoiding
forms associated with others’ failures.
Given the diversity of environmental communities and member features,
dispersed multinational teams probably need to explore a wider set of var-
iations. In the face of complexity, they will need to be particularly astute at
identifying the increased number of dysfunctional variations they encounter.
Mechanisms and rules for selection and retention of variations should be
designed to identify dysfunctional variations, and to motivate people to

create and apply variations that support the team’s central activity, as did
the Linux community. Teams will need to be alert to maintaining a proper
balance or stability of existing systems versus experimenting with new var-
iations. Finally, it is important for dispersed, multinational teams to be
cognizant of the fact that they will evolve rapidly and that their environ-
ments will change quickly. They will therefore need to carefully monitor
their environments and manage their resources so that, as far as possible,
they are in a position to actively steer their own course.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The preparation of this chapter was supported by grants from the National
Science Foundation (SBR 9422537, SBR 9602055, and IIS-9980109). We
thank Gerardine DeSanctis and the editors of this volume for valuable
comments and suggestions on an earlier draft.
REFERENCES
Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Amburgey, T. L., & Singh, J. V. (2002). Organizational evolution. In: J. A. C. Baum (Ed.),
Blackwell companion to organizations (pp. 327–343). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Astley, W. G. (1985). The two ecologies: Population and community perspectives on organ-
izational evolution. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 224–241.
Astley, W. G., & Fombrun, C. J. (1987). Organizational communities: An ecological perspec-
tive. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 5, 163–185.
Barnett, W. P. (1994). The liability of collective action: Growth and change among early
American telephone companies. In: J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds), Dynamics of
organizations (pp. 337–354). New York: Oxford University Press.
Baum, J. (1999). Whole-part coevolutionary competition in organizations. In: J. Baum & B.

McKelvey (Eds), Variation in organization science (pp. 113–135). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Baum, J. A. C., & Rowley, T. J. (2002). Companion to organizations: An introduction. In: J. A.
C. Baum (Ed.), Blackwell companion to organizations (pp. 1–34). Malden, MA: Black-
well.
Bonacich, P., & Schneider, S. (1992). Communication networks and collective action. In: W. B.
G. Liebrand, D. M. Messick & H. A. M. Wilke (Eds), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues
and research findings (pp. 225–245). New York: Pergamon Press.
Brandon, D. P., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2004). Transactive memory systems in organizations:
Matching tasks, expertise, and people. Organization Science, 15(6), 633–644.
Browning, L. D., Beyer, J. M., & Shetler, J. C. (1995). Building cooperation in a competitive
industry: SEMATECH and the semiconductor industry. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 38, 113–151.
Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other
knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380–400.
Campbell, D. T. (1965). Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. In: H. R.
Barringer, G. I. Blanksten & R. Mack (Eds), Social change in developing areas: A
reinterpretation of evolutionary theory (pp. 19–49). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
Carley, K. M. (1986). Knowledge acquisition as a social phenomenon. Instructional Science, 14,
381–438.
Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (2000). The demography of corporations and industries. Princ-
eton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1997). The power of identity. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1998). End of millennium. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1990). Grounding in communication. In: L. B. Resnick, R. M.
Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds), Perspectives of socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–
39.
Connolly, T., & Thorn, B. K. (1990). Discretionary databases: Theory, data, and implications.
In: J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 219–
233). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Contractor, N. S., Zink, D., & Chan, M. (1998). IKNOW: A tool to assist and study the
creation, maintenance, and dissolution of knowledge networks. In: T. Ishida (Ed.),
Community computing and support systems: Lecture notes in computer science 1519 (pp.
201–217). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Cramton, C. (2002). Attribution in distributed work groups. In: P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Ed.),
Distributed work: New research on working across distance using technology (pp. 191–
212). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Cummings, J. N., & Cross, R. (2003). Structural properties of work groups and their conse-
quences for performance. Social Networks, 25(3), 197–281.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness
and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.
DeSanctis, G. D., & Monge, P. R. (1999). Communication processes for virtual organizations.
Organization Science, 10, 693–703.
Ekeh, P. P. (1974). Social exchange theory: The two traditions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Flanagin, A., Monge, P., & Fulk, J. (2001). The value of formative investment in organizational
federations. Human Communication Research, 27, 69–93.
Fraidin, S. N., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2004). I know what I’m doing: The impact of gender
stereotypes about expertise on task assignments in groups. In: M. Neale, E. Mannix &
M. Thomas-Hunt (Eds), Managing groups and teams, (Vol. 7) status. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Fulk, J. (2001). Global organizational networks: Emergence and future prospects: A manifesto.
Human Relations, 54(1), 91–99.
Fulk, J., & Collins-Jarvis, L. (2000). Wired meetings: Technological mediation of organizational
gatherings. In: F. Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds), New handbook of organizational commu-
nication (pp. 624–663). Newbury Park: Sage.
Fulk, J., Flanagin, A., Kalman, M., Monge, P., & Ryan, T. (1996). Connective and communal
public goods in interactive communication systems. Communication Theory, 6, 60–87.
Fulk, J., Heino, R., Flanagin, A., Monge, P., & Bar, F. (2004). A test of the individual action
model for organizational information commons. Organization Science, 15(5), 569–585.
Hardin, R. (1982). Collective action. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Hawley, A. (1986). Human ecology: A theoretical essay. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Head, A. J. (2000). Demystifying intranet design: 5 guidelines for building usable sites. Online,
24, 36–42.
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations: Politics,
economics, and culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hewstone, M. (1990). The ultimate attribution error? A review of the literature on the inter-
group causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 311–355.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1998a). Communication learning and retrieval in transactive memory
systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 423–442.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1998b). Distributed knowledge and transactive processes in groups. In: M.
A. Neale, E. A. Mannix & D. H. Gruenfeld (Eds), Research on managing groups and
teams, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1998c). Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 659–671.
Hollingshead, A. B. (2000). Perceptions of expertise and transactive memory in work relation-
ships. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 257–267.
Hollingshead, A. B. (2001). Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in trans-
active memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1080–1089.
Hollingshead, A. B., & Brandon, D. B. (2003). Communication and transactive memory sys-
tems. Human Communication Research, 29, 607–615.
Hollingshead, A. B., & Fraidin, S. N. (2003). Gender stereotypes and assumptions about
expertise in transactive memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 355–363.
Hollingshead, A., Fulk, J., & Monge, P. (2002). Fostering intranet knowledge-sharing: An
integration of transactive memory and public goods approaches. In: P. J. Hinds & S.
Kiesler (Eds), Distributed work: New research on working across distance using technology
(pp. 335–355). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Hollingshead, A. B., Wittenbaum, G. M., Paulus, P., Hirokowa, R., Ancona, D., Peterson, R.,
Jehn, K., & Yoon, K. (2005). A look at groups from the functional perspective. In: M. S.
Pool & A. B. Hollingshead (Eds), Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary Perspectives.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Hunt, C. S., & Aldrich, H. E. (1998). The second ecology: Creation and evolution of organ-
izational communities. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 267–301.
Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams.
Organization Science, 10(6), 791–816.
Kalman, M., Monge, P., Fulk, J., & Heino, R. (2002). Motivations to resolve communication
dilemmas in database-mediated collaboration. Communication Research, 2, 125–154.
Katz, N., Lazer, D., Arrow, H., & Contractor, N. (2004). The network perspective on small
groups. In: M. S. Poole & A. B. Hollingshead (Eds), Theories of small groups: An
interdisciplinary perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kerr, N. L. (1992). Efficacy as a causal and moderating variable in social dilemmas. In: W. B.
G. Liebrand, D. M. Messick & H. A. M. Wilke (Eds), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues
and research findings (pp. 59–80). New York: Pergamon Press.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (1997). Fair process: Managing in the knowledge economy.
Harvard Business Review, 74(4), 65ff(11).
Kirkman, B., Rosen, B., Gibson, C., Tesluk, P., & McPherson, S. (2002). Five challenges for
virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 67–
80.
Kock, N. (2004). The psychobiolgical model: Towards a new theory of computer-mediated
communication based on Darwinian evolution. Organization Science, 15(3), 327–348.
Kollock, P. (1999). The economies of online cooperation: Gifts and public goods in cyberspace.
In: M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds), Communities in cyberspace. London: Routledge.
Kontopoulos, K. M. (1993). The logics of social structure. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Kraut, R., Fussell, S., Brennan, S., & Siegel, J. (2002). Understanding effects of proximity on
collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In: P.
J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds), Distributed work: New research on working across distance
using technology (pp. 137–163). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Kraut, R., Galegher, J., & Egido, J. (1990). Patterns of contact and communication in scientific
research collaboration. In: J. Galagher, R. E. Kraut & C. Egido (Eds), Intellectual
teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Kumar, K., & van Dissel, H. G. (1996). Sustainable collaboration: Managing conflict and
cooperation in interorganizational systems. MIS Quarterly, September, 279–300.
Lakhani, K. R., & von Hippel, E. (2003). How open source software works: Free user-to-user
assistance. Research Policy, 32, 923–943.
Leavitt, H. J., & Lipman-Blumne, J. (1995). Hot groups. Harvard Business Review, 73(4), 109–
116.
Lesperance, Y. (1991). A formal theory of indexical knowledge and action. Technical Report. CSRI-
248, Computer Systems Research Institute, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Liang, D. W., Moreland, R. L., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and
group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384–393.
Lipman-Blumen, J., & Leavitt, H. J. (1999). Hot groups with attitude: A new organizational
state of mind. Organizational Dynamics, 27(4), 63–73.
Littlepage, G., Robison, W., & Reddington (1997). Effects of task experience and group
experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organ-
izational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 133–147.
Mankin, D., & Cohen, S. H. (2004). Business without boundaries: An action framework for
collaborating across time, distance, organization and culture. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco,
CA.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization
Science, 2, 71–87.
Marwell, G., & Oliver, P. (1993). The critical mass in collective action: A micro-social theory.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mezias, S. J., & Lant, T. K. (1994). Mimetic learning and the evolution of organizational
populations. In: J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds), Dynamics of organizations (pp. 179–
198). New York: Oxford University Press.
Miner, A. S. (1994). Seeking adaptive advantage: Evolutionary theory and managerial action.
In: J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds), Dynamics of organizations (pp. 76–89). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Miner, A. S., & Raghavan, S. V. (1999). Interorganizational imitation: A hidden engine of
selection. In: J. A. C. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds), Variations in organization science: In
honor of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 35–62). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Minsky, M. A. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In: P. Winston (Ed.), The
psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Monge, P. R. (1998). Communication structures and processes in globalization. Journal of
Communication, 48, 142–153.
Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Monge, P., Fulk, J., Kalman, M., Flanagin, A., Parnassa, C., & Rumsey, S. (1998). Production
of collective action in alliance-based interorganizational communication and informa-
tion systems. Organization Science, 9, 411–433.
Monge, P. R., & Matei, S. A. (2004). The role of the global telecommunications network in
bridging economic and political divides, 1989 to 1999. Journal of Communication, 54, 1–
21.
Moon, J. Y., & Sproull, L. (2002). Essence of distributed work: The case of the linux kernel. In:
P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds), Distributed work: New research on working across distance
using technology (pp. 381–404). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Moreland, R. L. (1999). Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups and
organizations. In: L. Thompson, D. Messick & J. Levine (Eds), Sharing knowledge in
organizations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, T. (1996). Social shared cognition at work: Trans-
active memory and group performance. In: J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds), What’s
social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp.
57–84). ) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nardi, B. A., & Whittaker, S. (2002). The place of face-to-face communication in distributed
work. In: P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds), Distributed work: New research on working
across distance using technology (pp. 83–111). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge,
MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Sci-

ence, 5, 14–37.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Parker, B. (1998). Globalization and business practice: Managing across boundaries. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Romanelli, E. (1999). Blind (but not unconditioned) variation: Problems of copying in soci-
ocultural evolution. In: J. A. C. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds), Variations in organization
science: In honor of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 79–91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of Economics and
Statistics, 36, 387–390.
Scholte, J. (2002). Globalization: A critical introduction. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Schmitz, J., & Fulk, J. (1991). Organizational colleagues, information richness, and electronic
mail: A test of the social influence model of technology use. Communication Research,
18, 487–523.
Schultz, M. (2002). Organizational learning. In: J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), Blackwell companion to
organizations (pp. 415–441). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Schultz, M. (2003). Pathways of relevance: Exploring inflows of knowledge into subunits of
multinational corporations. Organization Science, 14, 440–459.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New
York: Wiley.
Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the
performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316–
325.
Shumate, M. (2003). The coevolution of a population with a community, organizations, and the
environment: The emergence, evolution, and impact of HIV/AIDS INGOs. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
Thomas, D. (2002). Hacker culture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology
and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, 12, 17–29.
Waters, M. (1995). Globalization. New York: Routledge.
Weber, S. (2004). The success of open source. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In: B.
Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York:
Springer.
Wegner, D. M. (1995). A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social
Cognition, 13, 319–339.
Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 923–929.
Wegner, D. M., Giuliano, T., & Hertel, P. (1985). Cognitive independence in close relationships.
In: W. J. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 252–276). New
York: Springer.
Yuan, Y., Fulk, J., Shumate, M., Monge, P. R., Bryant, J. A., & Matsaganis, M. (2005).
Individual participation in organizational information commons: The impact of team
level social influence and technology-specific competence. Human Communication
Research, 31, 212–240.
This article has been cited by:
1. Abouzar Sadeghzadeh, Maryam Haghshenas, Mojtaba Nassiriyar, Roghayeh

ShahbaziUtilizing Social Networks for Educational Purposes 351-383. [CrossRef]
2. Yohan Seo, Chan Lee, Hanna Moon. 2016. An organisational learning perspective
of knowledge creation and the activities of the quality circle. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence 27:3-4, 432-446. [CrossRef]
3. Meikuan Huang, Joshua Barbour, Chunke Su, Noshir Contractor. 2013. Why do
group members provide information to digital knowledge repositories? a multilevel
application of transactive memory theory. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology 64:3, 540-557. [CrossRef]
4. Vesa Peltokorpi. 2012. Organizational Transactive Memory Systems. European
Psychologist 17:1, 11-20. [CrossRef]

5. Angelika Zimmermann. 2011. Interpersonal relationships in transnational, virtual
teams: Towards a configurational perspective. International Journal of Management
Reviews 13:1, 59-78. [CrossRef]
6. Angelika ZimmermannInterpersonal Relationships in Transnational, Virtual
Teams 201-215. [CrossRef]
7. Peter Monge, Bettina M. Heiss, Drew B. Margolin. 2008. Communication
Network Evolution in Organizational Communities. Communication Theory 18:4,
449-477. [CrossRef]
8. Dietrich von der Olesnitz, Michael W. Busch. 2008. Die Bedeutung transaktiver
Gedächtnissysteme für die Informationsproduktion in Teams. Journal of Business
Economics 78:4, 367-396. [CrossRef]

Managing Multinational Teams: Global Perspectives: Article Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing Multinational Teams: Global Perspectives: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing Multinational Teams: Global Perspectives

Knowledge Resource Sharing in Dispersed Multinational Teams: Three Theoretical

Permanent link to this document:

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

Janet Fulk, Peter Monge and Andrea B. Hollingshead

Dispersed multinational teams include people from multiple nations, some

Globalization may be thought of initially as the widening, deepening and speeding up of

Managing Multinational Teams: Global Perspectives

Worldwide interconnectedness is increasing at a rate unparalleled in human

et al., 1999). Globalization of production and distribution is evident in such

tural context, nonverbal cues and psychological closeness, compared with

KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES AND STRUCTURES IN

repository that is accessible to all team members at their individual loca-

sharing. We employ transactive memory theory to explicate knowledge

We begin our presentation by applying the theoretical lens of transactive

nisms for managing the challenges and opportunities confronting dispersed

LENS 1: KNOWLEDGE RESOURCE STRUCTURES AS

The structure and sharing of knowledge resources in multinational teams

access to knowledge held by other members. This division of responsibility

communication networks based on information voluntarily shared by

Opportunities and Challenges for Dispersed Multinational Teams

Lack of proximity increases the challenges facing knowledge resource shar-

offers the opportunity to resolve differences in interpretation via direct

Much of the interaction in distributed work teams takes place using

correcting misunderstandings (Kraut et al., 2002). Although lack of physical

transactive memory development, knowledge resource sharing and group

LENS 2: MOTIVATING PARTICIPATION IN

We have argued that transactive memory is the shared distribution of cog-

resources are indexed to specific locations. The location often is a person

who might be willing to share them. Communal storage of knowledge

is that knowledge resources will be undershared when individuals themselves

be clear who should be acquiring and sharing what types of knowledge

Two additional concerns are specific to dispersed multinational teams. The

collective beneﬁt provided by the distributed knowledge commons. This

Reciprocity offers an additional explanation for attention to mundane but

Other collective action literature suggests a fourth mechanism for

mobilizers by providing more central and powerful positions in the group

A sixth consideration in facilitating collective generation and maintenance

of expertise (Hollingshead 1998a). Where dispersed multinational teams in-

goods transformations, distributions of labor, mobilizers, supportive com-

will need to evolve as well, both in relation to intrateam changes as well as in

LENS 3: THE EVOLUTION OF DISPERSED

knowledge that they can either cooperatively contribute or competitively

ﬁt into their larger community. From the perspective of an organization

Selection of knowledge elements involves choosing one or more variations

studying this tension, ‘‘y specifically the modiﬁcation of existing entities or

Ties and Evolution

The interdependence of relational ties within and between populations of

commensalist or symbiotic (Barnett, 1994). Commensalist ties range from

multinational Linux team draws its members from a number of different

Evolution of Forms of Transactive Memories and Knowledge Networks

Under the inﬂuence of communities and populations, knowledge resource

mechanistic versus organic forms of organization (Burns & Stalker, 1962).

Carroll and Hannan’s (2000) own definition of organizational forms

involves a blend of both types of processing. For dispersed multinational

question is: how do dispersion and multinationality impact transactive

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

expertise recognition, assessing the knowledge and abilities of their team

generally maintaining awareness of their task, and for coordinating the

provide opportunities for members to build interpersonal as well as work

Face-to-face meetings should be held at regular intervals to evaluate the

the transactive memory system. The challenges are to make incentives

Second, visibility enhancement mechanisms can be developed to publicize