mudslinging and manners anna filippova national university of singapore 2016

283 Pages·2016·1.38 MB·English

MUDSLINGING AND MANNERS
ANNA FILIPPOVA
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
2016
MUDSLINGING AND MANNERS
AMULTI-METHODEXAMINATIONOFCONFLICTINFREEAND
OPENSOURCESOFTWAREDEVELOPMENT
ANNA FILIPPOVA
B.A. (Hons), Monash University, 2008
A THESIS SUBMITTED
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF
PHILOSOPHY
COMMUNICATIONS AND NEW MEDIA
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
2016
Declaration
I hereby declare that this thesis is my original work and it has been
written by me in its entirety. I have duly acknowledged all the
sources of information which have been used in the thesis.
This thesis has also not been submitted for any degree in any uni-
versity previously.
Anna Filippova
April 22, 2016
i
Name : AnnaFilippova
Degree : DoctorofPhilosophy
Supervisor(s) : Dr. HichangCho
Department : CommunicationsandNewMedia
ThesisTitle : MudslingingandManners
Amulti-methodexaminationofconflictinFree
andOpenSourceSoftwareDevelopment
ii
Acknowledgment
Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr.
Hichang Cho for the continuous support of my Ph.D study and research, for
his patience, motivation, enthusiasm, and immense knowledge. His guidance
helpedmeinallthetimeofresearchandwritingofthisthesis.
Besides my advisor, I would like to thank the rest of my thesis committee:
Dr. Jude Yew and Dr. Michael Stefanone, for their encouragement, insightful
comments,andhardquestions.
My sincere thanks also goes to the Singapore tech community for offering
metheirhospitality,friendshipandsupport.
Lastbutnottheleast,Iwouldliketothankmyfamily: boththeoneIstarted
with four years ago, and the one I found along the way. You are my biggest
cheerleader.
April22,2016
iii
iv
Contents
1 Introduction 3
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1 Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.3 Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.1.4 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.1.5 ThesisStructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2 LiteratureReview1-FreeandOpenSourceSoftware . . . . . . 15
1.2.1 BackgroundandHistoryofFreeandOpenSourceSoft-
ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.2.2 PastResearchonFOSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.2.3 RelevanceoforganizationaltheorytoFOSSresearch . . 28
2 LiteratureReview2-ConflictinOrganizationalTeam 35
2.1 Classictheoryonconflictinsocialgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2 Conflictinorganizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.2.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.2.2 Processversusstructuralapproaches . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.2.3 Towardsanintragroupconflicttaxonomy . . . . . . . . 43
2.2.4 Teamdevelopmentovertime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.3 Virtualteams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.3.1 CMCas"lack" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.3.2 Beyondlimitationsofreducedsocialcues . . . . . . . . 61
2.3.3 Conflictinlong-termorientedvirtualteams . . . . . . . 64
3 Study1-InterviewsandParticipantObservation 69
3.1 Studyscopeandspecificresearchquestions . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.2 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.2.1 Epistemology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.2.2 DataCollection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.2.3 Immersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
v
3.2.4 Theoreticalsampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.2.5 Intervieweedemographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.2.6 InterviewProcedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.2.7 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.3.1 TaskConflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.3.2 ProcessConflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.3.3 AffectiveandTransformingConflict . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.3.4 Normativeconflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.4 Discussion1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.5 ConflictAntecedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.5.1 GeographicalTeamDistribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.5.2 Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
3.5.3 DistributionofDecision-MakingandBikeshedding . . . 108
3.5.4 Interdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
3.6 Discussion2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4 Hypothesis Development - Conflict, Inputs, Emergent States and
Outcomes 117
4.1 HypothesisDevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.1.1 Normativeconflictasafourthconflictdimension . . . . 120
4.1.2 Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4.1.3 Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4.1.4 Conflictantecedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.1.5 Controlvariables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5 Study2-Survey 147
5.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
5.1.1 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
5.1.2 Pilottests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
5.1.3 Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
5.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
5.2.1 ModelSpecification: MeasurementModel . . . . . . . . 159
5.2.2 Descriptivestatistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
5.2.3 ModelSpecification: StructuralModel . . . . . . . . . . 163
5.2.4 Hypothesistesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
5.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
5.3.1 NormativeConflictasaSeparateConflictDimension . . 177
vi
5.3.2 Differential impact of conflict types on team emergent
statesandoutcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
6 Discussion 191
6.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
6.2 ContributionstoFOSSliterature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
6.2.1 ConflictManifestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
6.2.2 ConflictInterpretationandConflictNorms . . . . . . . 197
6.3 Contributions and Implications of the Normative Conflict di-
mension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
6.4 ContributionstoVirtualTeamLiterature . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
6.4.1 Conflict, Emergent states and Outcomes in Ongoing
VirtualTeams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
6.4.2 ConflictTransformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
6.4.3 ConflictAntecedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
7 Conclusion 217
7.1 SynthesisofEmpiricalFindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
7.2 TheoreticalImplications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
7.3 PracticalImplications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
7.4 LimitationsandDirectionsforFutureWork . . . . . . . . . . . 228
7.4.1 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
7.4.2 Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
7.4.3 Objectiveoutcomeandinputmeasures . . . . . . . . . 230
7.4.4 Multi-leveleffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
7.4.5 Conflictresolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
7.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Appendices 258
.1 Inter-ItemCorrelations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
.2 Literatureexaminingconflictinvirtualteams . . . . . . . . . . 263
.3 SurveyItemMeasures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
vii
Abstract
This dissertation presents evidence to expand theory on conflict in ongoing dis-
tributed virtual work groups, such as Free and Open Source Software (FOSS)
communities,throughtheinclusionofnormativeconflict. Specifically,thework
outlines how FOSS teams experience disagreements not only arising out of the
directactionofworkingonasoftwareproject,butalsoconcerningthenormsof
the group, such as ideology, mission and values. Conflict as a team process is
thusmorethanataskbyproduct;inlong-termorientedself-organizingteams,it
is a self-reflexive process that can stimulate community evolution, and in some
cases,dissolution.
Normative conflict is not only a novel addition to conflict theory, but also
a factor with significant impact on the health of open collaborative communi-
ties. Empirical findings suggest normative conflict to be the strongest overall
predictor of developer retention, having both a direct negative effect, as well as
throughexacerbatingothertypesofwork-drivenconflict.
The dissertation traces the discovery (through interviews and community
engagement),operationalization(throughdevelopmentandrefinementofanor-
mativeconflictscale)andgeneralization(followingawidesurvey)ofnormative
conflictaspartofanupdatedconflictframeworkforongoingdistributedvirtual
workgroups.
The dissertation thus presents a theoretical, methodological and practical
contributiontounderstandingconflictinvirtualcommunitiesandorganizations.
Theoretically, the work elucidates and provides support for the expansion of
our existing understanding of conflict in distributed teams. Methodologically,
the work provides a validated set of measurement tools for the updated conflict
framework. Finally, the dissertation examines various team structural factors
that may stimulate or reduce conflict occurrence, offering practical advice for
communitybuildingandmaintenance.
viii