ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: We thank the senior editor on the manuscript, V. Sambamurthy, and the anonymous associate editor and reviewers for their many insightful suggestions on earlier

The emerging work on understanding open source software has strongly argued for the importance of understanding what leads to effectiveness in OSS development, has frequently pointed to ideology and communication as probable factors in effectiveness, and has presented conflicting opinions about the role of trust in effectiveness. For all the discussion of these issues, there has been no comprehensive elaboration of what constitutes OSS ideology, and very little empirical data has been brought to bear on examining antecedents of OSS team effectiveness. This paper develops a framework of the OSS ideology (including specific norms, beliefs, and values) and a theoretical model to show how components of the ideology, combined with trust and communication, impact effectiveness in OSS teams. The research model proposes distinct roles for affective trust, cognitive trust, social communication, and task communication as determinants of OSS team effectiveness. Qualitative and quantitative data are analyzed to evaluate the model. The results suggest that in order for OSS projects to grow into the kind of large successes that prior work has studied, the teams that work on them should foster the norms and values of the larger community and maintain consistent task communication to develop cognitive trust among members. Keywords: Open Source Software, Trust, Ideology, Communication, Virtual Teams ISRL categories: DA01, DA06, DD02 EFFECTIVENESS IN OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT TEAMS While the practices associated with Open Source Software (OSS) development have been in use for decades, recent years have seen a surge of interest in OSS across developers, businesses, governments, and academic researchers. Since its inception, more than 67,000 projects have been registered on Sourcefo...

Methodological fit, an implicitly valued attribute of high-quality field research in organizations, has received little attention in the management literature. Fit refers to internal consistency among elements of a research project—research question, prior work, research design, and theoretical contribution. We introduce a contingency framework that relates prior work to the design of a research project, paying particular attention to the question of when to mix qualitative and quantitative data in a single research paper. We discuss implications of the framework for educating new field researchers. To advance management theory, a growing number of scholars are engaging in field research, studying real people, real problems, and real organizations. Although the potential relevance of field research is motivating, the research journey can be messy and inefficient, fraught with logistical hurdles and unexpected events. Researchers manage complex relationships with sites, cope with constraints on sample selection and timing of data collection, and often confront mid-project changes to planned research designs. With these additional challenges, the logic of a research design and how it supports the development of a specific theoretical contribution can be obscured or altered along the way in field research. Compared to experimental studies, analyses of published data sets, or computer simulations, achieving fit between the type of data collected in and the theoretical contribution of a given field research project is a dynamic and challenging process.

This paper contributes to the development of a critical understanding of strategic management. We provide a brief outline of strategic management as it is conventionally taught and practiced, pointing to several avenues for developing critical approaches. In the broadest sense, a critical perspective stands outside of the managerialist orientation in order to study strategy as an organizational process. We review work in the processual school that purports to describe how strategy is ‘really ’ made, from bargaining, constructivist, and emergent perspectives. We argue that processual approaches hold some promise but quickly move toward prescriptive managerialism. A second, more profound critique draws from critical theory and postmodern insights to question the social and political effects of strategic management. Strategy can be viewed as a set of practices and discourses which promotes instrumental rationality, reproduces hierarchical relations of power, and systematically privileges the interests and viewpoints of particular groups. While this approach has been valuable in probing the ideology of strategy, its focus on discourse and lack of concern with the ‘truth of strategy ’ is a potential weakness. A third approach draws from Gramsci to offer an historical materialist perspective, which pays more attention to the content of strategy. We argue that the strategic deployment of discursive, organizational, and economic resources in sustaining or challenging hegemony suggests a strategic concept of power and a political perspective on corporate strategies to exercise market power, discipline labour, influence government policies, and resist pressures from social groups. It also points to a more encompassing vision of emancipation strategies than that offered by critical theory.

Learning from experience, the cyclical interplay of thinking and doing, is increasingly important as organizations struggle to cope with rapidly changing environments and more complex and interdependent sets of knowledge. This paper confronts two central issues for organizational learning: (1) how is local learning (by individuals or small groups) integrated into collective learning by organizations? and (2) what are the differences between learning practices that focus on control, elimination of surprises, and single-loop incremental “fixing ” of problems with those that focus on deep or radical learning, double-loop challenging of assumptions, and discovery of new opportunities? We articulate these relationships through an analysis of learning practices in high-hazard organizations, specifically, problem investigation teams that examine the most serious and troubling events and trends in nuclear power plants and chemical plants. Our analysis suggests a four-stage model of organizational learning reflecting different approaches to control and learning. LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE IN HIGH-HAZARD ORGANIZATIONS 1

A candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy And hereby certify that in their opinion it is worthy of acceptance. Dedicated to… My father, Who let me become me Amy, Who has given me the greatest joys of my life

A challenge for many online production communities is to direct their members to accomplish tasks that are important to the group, even when these tasks may not match individual members ’ interests. Here we investigate how combining group identification and direction setting can motivate volunteers in online communities to accomplish tasks important to the success of the group as a whole. We hypothesize that group identity, the perception of belonging to a group, triggers in-group favoritism; and direction setting (including explicit direction from group goals and implicit direction from role models) focuses people’s group-oriented motivation towards the group’s important tasks. We tested our hypotheses in the context of Wikipedia's Collaborations of the Week (COTW), a group goal setting mechanism and a social event within Wikiprojects. Results demonstrate that 1) publicizing important group goals via COTW can have a strong motivating influence on editors who have voluntarily identified themselves as group members compared to those who have not self-identified; 2) the effects of goals spill over to non-goal related tasks; and 3) editors exposed to group role models in COTW are more likely to perform similarly to the models on group-relevant citizenship behaviors. Finally, we discuss design and managerial implications based on our findings.

On behalf of:

This case study investigated how the executive (i.e., CEO, COO, CIO) leaders of a mid-west financial organization increased their credibility during a planned organizational change. This research focused specifically on the relationship between the leaders’ communication of a planned change and the leadership teams’ credibility. A qualitative methodology approach was used to capture the individual experiences from the employees. Phenomenological interviewing was the primary source of data collection and analysis. Data collection included face-to-face interviews with 25 participants, a thorough review of archival data and participant observer field notes. The results suggest three themes and seven categories contributed to the building of leadership credibility through meaningful and effective communications: The Change 1. Re-branding the Vision: The leadership team had a vision, to re-brand the organization; 2. Employee Support of Change: Most participants supported the new vision and thought the change to consistent and streamlined processes across all local banks was long overdue; 3. Connectedness to New Organization: Most participants began to identify with the change through the new logo and wearing the logo pin. They felt a strong sense of connection or “oneness” with the new organization; The Leaders 4. Unified Leadership Team: Most participants saw the three leaders function more as a leadership team than as individuals as they communicated a unifying change message; 5. Credible and Visible Leaders: Most participants believed leadership credibility increased during the change and thought the change helped the leaders become more visible to the organization during the change process; The Communication 6. Communication Process: In most instances participants believed a well structured, well orchestrated, multi-channel communication process was critical for supporting the change and for increasing the leaders’ credibility; 7. Reinforcing the Change: Face-to-face, follow-up meetings helped to reinforce the change and were perceived by most participants as significant for increasing leadership credibility. Analysis of the data suggests a strong, positive relationship among 1) the nature of the change (a re-branding that was viewed positively by participants), 2) the credibility of the leaders was evident in their communication throughout the change process, and 3) the change communication process was perceived as well structured by participants.

this paper allow confronting empirically the Bush-Mosteller stochastic model and reinforcement model of Roth and Erev. These models have not previously been compared in empirical research despite the prominent role that both play in the literature