Development of Shared Understanding Between the Chief Information ...

3 downloads 59 Views 769KB Size Report
Chief Information Officer and Top Management Team in U.S. and French ..... avoidance cultures use technology, rules, structure, and rituals for the reduction of ...... Tallahassee, FL: College of Business, Florida State Univ.,. 1999, pp. 1–170.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 53, NO. 2, MAY 2006

191

Development of Shared Understanding Between the Chief Information Officer and Top Management Team in U.S. and French Organizations: A Cross-Cultural Comparison David S. Preston, Elena Karahanna, and Frantz Rowe

Abstract—The gap in understanding between the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and the top management team (TMT) has often been cited as a cause of a troubled CIO/TMT relationship. Recent research has proposed the development of a shared understanding about the role of information systems (IS) in the organization as a key endeavor in bridging the “gap in understanding” between CIOs and TMT members. The authors propose a variety of knowledge exchange mechanisms, as well as relational similarity as key mechanisms for the development of this shared understanding. This study examines the cross-cultural efficacy of such mechanisms. Specifically, the study compares the development of this shared understanding between CIOs and the TMT in U.S. and French organizations. The research model is empirically tested using structural equation modeling via a field survey with two data samples: 1) 163 U.S. CIOs and 2) 44 French CIOs. The results show both similarities and differences in these mechanisms. Specifically, in both samples, CIO educational mechanisms impact the development of a shared understanding. However, while in the French sample social systems of knowing are key mechanisms, in the U.S. sample structural systems of knowing and relational similarity are key mechanisms of achieving a shared understanding between the CIO and TMT. Index Terms—Chief information officer (CIO), cross-cultural, knowledge exchange, shared understanding, top management team (TMT).

I. INTRODUCTION

D

ESPITE recognition of information systems (IS) as a key enabler of business strategy and despite significant investments in IS, organizations have often found themselves unable to apply IS effectively [1]–[4]. The Chief Information Officer’s (CIO’s) often limited understanding of business and strategic issues [5], [6], as well as the CEO’s and top management team’s (TMT’s) often limited understanding of IS capabilities [4], [7] have been cited as major obstacles to IS effectiveness. Recent research [8] has proposed the development of a shared understanding about the role of IS in the organization as a key endeavor in bridging the “gap in understanding” between

Manuscript received October 1, 2004; revised March 25, 2005. Review of this manuscript was arranged by Special Issue Department Editor R. T. Watson. D. S. Preston is with Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129 USA (e-mail: [email protected]). E. Karahanna is with the University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 USA (e-mail: [email protected]). F. Rowe is with the University of Nantes, Nantes 44036, France (e-mail: [email protected]). Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEM.2006.872244

CIOs and TMT members. The authors propose a variety of knowledge exchange mechanisms, as well as relational similarity as key mechanisms for the development of this shared understanding. The objective of the current study is to examine the cross-cultural efficacy of such mechanisms. The need to examine IS in a cross-cultural context arises from the growth of global businesses and the global use of IS as a strategic capability. Research has provided evidence that differences in national culture may influence differences in the effects of IS management [9]–[12] and numerous researchers have called for research that integrates IS and national culture [13]–[15]. In addition, researchers have argued that cultural values of the United States and North America underlie and have fundamentally framed management research [16] including the field of information systems [17]. In many instances, attempts to introduce North American theories and practices into these cultures were not successful since people from dissimilar national cultures have different ways of doing business and disparate values for guiding human behavior [17], [18]. With a better appreciation of the cultural factor, scholars are emphasizing the need to assess the cultural robustness of existing theories and practices to distinguish universal from culture-specific knowledge [17], [19]. In addition to this broader need for more cross-cultural research, Watson et al. [12] found that IS leadership is universally a key issue to executives across countries. Thus, examining the applicability of current IS leadership theories across cultures would likely also be of practical interest. Therefore, the objective of the current study is to examine whether the development of a shared understanding about the role of IS in the organization between the IS leader and the organization’s TMT is culturally invariant. Specifically, we examine whether the effectiveness of mechanisms used to facilitate the development of a shared understanding (i.e., knowledge exchange mechanisms and relational similarity) is culturally dependent. To answer this question, the current study conducts a cross-cultural comparison of U.S. and French organizations. While many studies do not integrate the cultural dimension per se, but in fact limit themselves to a comparative approach [20], this study integrates cultural dimensions in the modeling of the phenomenon which can help generalize findings and issues to other countries. The paper proceeds as follows. The next section briefly develops the research model of the study. This is followed by hypotheses positing differences between U.S. and France on key

0018-9391/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE

192

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 53, NO. 2, MAY 2006

Fig. 1. Research model.

relationships of the research model emanating from differences in culture. The research methodology, data analysis, and the study’s limitations follow. This paper concludes with a discussion of implications and conclusions. II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Extant academic and practitioner research recognizes the gap in understanding between the CIO and the TMT about the role of IS within the organization as a major obstacle to IS effectiveness within an organization. Previous research has suggested that the CIO and TMT must have a shared understanding of the role of IS in the organization to derive desired organizational outcomes such as IS strategic alignment and firm performance [21]–[24]. Preston and Karahanna [8] suggest that a shared understanding between the CIO and the TMT are developed through two primary antecedents: 1) knowledge exchange mechanisms and 2) relational similarity between the CIO and TMT. In this study, we examine whether culture influences the relative effectiveness of these two sets of antecedents on shared understanding. Fig. 1 presents the research model for the study. Below, we briefly discuss the various components of the research model by first providing the theoretical rationale for the proposed relationships between the key antecedents and shared CIO/TMT understanding, and by then developing hypotheses regarding how culture impacts these relationships. A. Antecedents to Shared CIO/TMT Understanding 1) Knowledge Exchange Mechanisms: Knowledge exchange is critical in the development of a shared understanding between the CIO and TMT regarding the role of IS within the organization. IS executives must understand the objectives of top management to enable effective IS deployment in the organization [25] and the TMT must understand IS capabilities and capitalize on these to enable, support, or shape the organization’s business strategy. Thus, knowledge exchange mechanisms, which allow

for the transfer of business and strategic IS knowledge, are key to the creation of a shared understanding between the organization’s key strategic decision makers. Knowledge exchange mechanisms include: 1) systems of knowing and 2) CIO educational mechanisms. Systems of Knowing: Individuals must have access to those with whom they wish to exchange and integrate knowledge [26]. Organizations need to provide a structure to allow interaction between the CIO and TMT and thereby exchange knowledge. Researchers suggest that knowledge can be exchanged through systems of knowing [4], [26], [27] which comprise: 1) structural systems that pertain to official and formal interactions between the CIO and TMT based on the formal structures within the organization and 2) social systems based on informal interactions between the CIO and TMT. Structural systems of knowing are formal structural arrangements within the organization that include: 1) CIO reporting level and 2) formal CIO membership in the TMT [26], [28]. Reporting directly to the CEO and having formal TMT membership provides the CIO with opportunities for official engagements with the TMT. These structures are likely to afford the CIO with a greater understanding of the organization’s business practices, goals, and vision. It also creates a potential forum for the TMT to better understand the role of IS in supporting business strategy and process. In tandem, these should build a heightened shared understanding between the CIO and TMT on the role of IS in the organization [4], [25], [29], [30]. Social systems of knowing are defined as the frequency of informal interactions, communication, and socializing between the CIO and TMT. Frequent informal CIO/TMT communication allows for a rich communication channel which provides the CIO with a greater understanding of the goals and vision of the firm [30], [31] and promotes the development of a mutual understanding between the CIO and TMT [29], [32], [33]. These social systems of knowing reflect informal and social interactions

PRESTON et al.: DEVELOPMENT OF SHARED UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CIO AND TMT IN U.S. AND FRENCH ORGANIZATIONS

193

TABLE I DIMENSIONS OF CULTURE

between the CIO and TMT and expand knowledge exchange opportunities beyond what formal structural systems will allow. CIO Educational Mechanisms: The concept of CIO knowledge exchange mechanisms is not necessarily captured by systems of knowing within the organization. The CIO may try to informally educate the TMT on IS capabilities during every opportunity for interaction that he or she gets, which is captured by systems of knowing. However, there are also formal educational mechanisms that are distinct such as: educating the TMT with regard to the capabilities of IS; facilitating TMT computer literacy; providing insight into emerging opportunities for IS; and managing the TMT expectations and providing realistic expectations regarding the capabilities of IS. Thus, the CIO can also proactively create formal educational opportunities for the TMT to learn about IS capabilities. CIO educational mechanisms allow for an additional forum for the transfer of IS specific knowledge to the TMT, and consequently the development of a shared understanding [29], [34]–[38]. 2) Relational Similarity: Relational similarity is defined as the similarity of background characteristics (demographic and experiential) between the CIO and TMT. Individuals with similar demographic variables and similar experiences have similar attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, as well as a similar understanding [39]–[42]. The effect of demographic similarity is moderated by experience in that as individuals become more acquainted, the effect of demographic similarity declines [43], [44], while the effect of experiential similarity remains. Therefore, we assess relational similarity between the CIO and the TMT based on experiential similarity. III. NATIONAL CULTURE A. National Cultural Dimensions Even though national culture has been defined in various ways (see Straub et al. [45] for an extensive review of definitions of national culture), Hofstede’s definition, as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes members of one human group from another” ([46, p. 260]), is the

most often used. Hofstede [18], [46], based on surveys of over 120,000 respondents from over 50 countries, suggests that national culture can be conceptualized along five dimensions: individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity, and long-term orientation. Hofstede’s [18], [46] definition of national culture, as most culture definitions [45], is based on values; collectively, members of the same culture are similar in the way that they prefer to view the world [10]. Values and attitudes underlie human behavior and preferences. As such, Hofstede’s dimensions provide a lens for researchers to examine how different cultural values relate to relevant IS behaviors or preferences [10]. Several studies provide support that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are stable [17], [47]–[49], can be used to account for empirical observations [50]–[53], and are useful with explanatory powers in several disciplines [17]. In addition, information systems research has successfully employed Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in examining a wide cross section of IS behaviors [15], [17], [54]–[64]. Therefore, due to its widespread acceptance, we adopt Hofstede’s dimensions of culture as the basis of examining the impact of culture on the research relationships described in the previous section. Table I contains definitions of the five cultural dimensions, as well as the scores on those dimensions for the United States and France. As can be seen from the Table I, these two countries differ significantly on four of the dimensions. The United States is a more individualistic and more masculine culture, while France is higher on power distance and uncertainty avoidance. No comparable scores could be obtained for the U.S. and France for long-term orientation. In this study, we will base our hypotheses on three of the five dimensions (Individualism/ Collectivism, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Power Distance). B. Influence of National Culture on Organizational Practices Ford et al. [10] indicate that several research studies have misapplied Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, which are intended to describe values at a national (or group, i.e., subculture) level, not at an individual level. However, Ford et al. [10] suggest that

194

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 53, NO. 2, MAY 2006

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions can be appropriately applied to theories developed for an individual unit of analysis where national culture might play an important role in comparing different populations by applying Hofstede’s cultural dimensions as moderating variables that influence the weighting of the predictor variables. This study does not assume that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions exist at the individual level. The premise of this study is that national culture influences organizational practices. Hofstede [18] provides a vast amount of support in his work that national culture influences organizational cultures and practices including their leadership. Specifically, Hofstede suggests that organizations are bound by national culture in that they are symbolic entities that function according to the implicit models in the minds of their members, and these models are culturally determined [18]. Further, leadership values and practices reflect the dominant culture of a country. In addition to Hofstede, an array of additional previous research supports the position that organizational practices are influenced by national culture. For example, Zucker [66] argues that organizations are institutions that exhibit the values and norms of their societies. Further, Shaw [67] argues that the dominant national cultural values are an important element of the person’s cognitive map and are reflected in the social systems and institutions of a culture. Tosi and Greckhamer [53] contend that the value systems of nations’ populations both directly and indirectly influence the structure and functioning of economic organizations. Their study provides empirical evidence indicating that CEO compensation practices are influenced by Hofstede’s national culture dimensions. In addition, Tosi and Greckhamer [53] state that there is convincing evidence that culture affects management and organizational practices including organization design [68]; managerial philosophies [69]; management and leadership styles [70]; and motivational techniques [71]. In line with these studies and with empirical evidence, the current research also suggests that national culture influences organizational leadership practices, as shown in Fig. 1. Specific hypotheses are proposed in the next section. IV. HYPOTHESES Culture is a collective social phenomenon [65] and should manifest in the type and nature of interactions preferred by its members. Thus, since a shared understanding is developed through social interactions and exchanges between the CIO and the TMT and through other organizational practices, one may expect culture to manifest in preferred shared understanding building mechanisms that will differ across cultures. Below, we develop hypotheses that posit different relationships between shared CIO/TMT understanding and its antecedents across the United States and France. We only posit hypotheses where differences are expected. Where no hypotheses are posited, no differences are expected. A. Individualism/Collectivism Research on individualism/collectivism suggests that in more collectivistic societies, personal relationships prevail over the task [72]. In fact, social capital theory is concerned with the sig-

nificance of relationships as a resource for social action [73]. Social capital theory proposes that networks of relationships constitute a valuable resource for the conduct of social affairs providing their members with “collectivity-owned” capital [26]. Much of this capital is embedded within networks of mutual acquaintance and recognition. Social capital facilitates the development of intellectual capital by affecting the conditions necessary for exchange and combination to occur. The fundamental proposition of social capital theory is that network ties provide access to resources. One of the central themes in the literature is that social capital constitutes a valuable source of information benefits (i.e., “who you know” affects “what you know”) [26]. This social capital is a more valued resource in collectivistic societies [74] than it is in individualistic societies. Consequently, given the higher significance of relationships as a resource for social action in collectivistic societies, social systems of knowing allow the CIO to better understand social regulations and to influence the TMT members’ understanding in France (which is more collectivistic) than in the United States. This would suggest that social systems of knowing are a more important knowledge exchange mechanism in France than in the United States. Thus, we propose the following. Hypothesis 1: The relationship between social systems of knowing and shared CIO/TMT understanding is moderated by the cultural dimension of individualism/collectivism such that the relationship will be stronger in France than in the U.S. B. Uncertainty Avoidance Uncertainty avoidance deals with the level of anxiety about the future and refers to the level of ambiguity that a culture can tolerate as evidenced by rule orientation, employment stability, and stress. According to Hofstede [72], high uncertainty avoidance cultures use technology, rules, structure, and rituals for the reduction of uncertainty and to make events predictable and interpretable. The uncertainty avoidance dimension has several important implications for the current study. High uncertainty avoidance cultures rely more heavily on formal mechanisms and formal organizational structures and routines to regulate work and interaction. Further, while low uncertainty avoidance cultures tend to be characterized by a relationship orientation, high uncertainty avoidance cultures tend to be more task oriented [72]. Structural systems of knowing present formal avenues via which CIOs and TMT members can build a common perspective. Thus, we would expect a stronger reliance on structural systems of knowing as a key knowledge exchange mechanism in France (which has a higher uncertainty avoidance score) than in the U.S. Hypothesis 2: The relationship between structural systems of knowing and shared CIO/TMT understanding is moderated by the cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance such that the relationship will be stronger in France than in the U.S. In addition, high uncertainty avoidance countries value specialists and expertise and prefer structured learning environ-

PRESTON et al.: DEVELOPMENT OF SHARED UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CIO AND TMT IN U.S. AND FRENCH ORGANIZATIONS

ments [72], [75]. This would suggest that the CIO may be more successful in engaging in his educational role since the above conditions would likely make members of the TMT more receptive to these efforts. In particular, a recent survey in 88 large French organizations indicated that TMT members emphasized the desire to have the following types of discourse with the CIO: a debate between the CIO and TMT regarding the strategic issues linked to IS and systematic communication between the CIO and TMT about the benefits of IS for the TMT member’s business units [76]. In a high uncertainty avoidance culture, the need is therefore very strong to better understand the possible consequences of the implementation of IS to the organization particularly since in these cultures IS projects are viewed as more risky and prone to failure and since TMT members are not at ease with change management with respect to large IS investments [77]. Therefore, there is a high demand in France for clear expectations about what technology and systems can deliver. Thus, the following. Hypothesis 3: The relationship between CIO Educational Mechanisms and a shared CIO/TMT understanding is moderated by the cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance such that the relationship will be stronger in France than in the U.S. Finally, relational similarity suggests that similar demographic and experiential backgrounds lead to more frequent interaction and interpersonal attraction. This has been attributed to the common beliefs, values, and attitudes likely to be shared by individuals who are relationally similar. This effect will likely be attenuated in high uncertainty avoidance cultures. Relational similarity can be viewed as an uncertainty reduction mechanism in providing a level of predictability in an interaction. Therefore, we would expect the effect of relational demography to be more important in the French sample than in the U.S. sample. Thus, the following. Hypothesis 4: The relationship between Relational Similarity and shared understanding between the CIO and TMT is moderated by the cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance such that the relationship will be stronger in France than in the U.S. This above hypothesis is also reinforced by the individualism/ collectivism dimension. In individualistic societies there is a lesser focus on belonging to in-groups (people sharing similar backgrounds and interests) than in collectivistic societies [50]. This reinforces the fact that relational similarity is likely to have a stronger effect in France than in the US. C. Power Distance Power distance refers to the degree to which subordinates expect and accept status inequalities as normal. Hofstede [72] suggests that differences in power distance lead to changes in management processes and organizational structures across countries. Specifically, and relevant to the current study, organizations in higher power distance countries exhibit more centralized authority than those in lower power distance countries [72], [78]. Further, the higher the power distance the less participative the management system [79]. As a result, since

195

France is higher on power distance than the United States, one may expect that compared with U.S. CIOs, French CIOs will be less likely to be members of the TMT. Thus, we posit the following. Hypothesis 5: Power distance will have a negative direct effect on structural systems of knowing such that U.S. CIOs are more likely to be members of the TMT than French CIOs. Further, the more authoritative and less consultive leadership in high power distance cultures may imply fewer opportunities for two-way exchanges between the CIO and the CEO or other members of the TMT and, thus, lesser convergence of understanding about the role of IS in the organization. This effect will be amplified by the hierarchical distance. Indeed, a study by Harbison and Burgess [80] comparing the U.S. with France, Belgium, and Italy (all three high on power distance) states that in the latter group “upward communication is neither expected nor encouraged” ([80, p. 19]). Therefore, information flow in high-power distance countries appears to be constrained by hierarchy. Thus, we posit the following. Hypothesis 6: Power distance will have a negative effect on shared understanding such that there will be a lower level of shared understanding between CIOs and the TMT for French companies which are high on power distance than for companies in the U.S. which are lower on power distance. V. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Study Sample This research study focuses on organizational practices at the executive level of the organization, which includes the CIO, CEO, and other members of the TMT. The CIO is defined in this study as the senior IS executive within the organization [28], [81]. The TMT is defined as the CEO and those most influential senior executives in the organization who report directly to the CEO [82]. Given the difficulty of obtaining a suitable number of top executives across two countries for quantitative empirical data analysis, it is important to have a data collection strategy that would enable an adequate cross-cultural sample size. This study uses the CIO as a single key informant since this strategy allows for a greater and more diverse sample. In the current study, the questions asked of the CIO are questions within the range of knowledge of this executive; thus the CIO is an appropriate key informant. The response rate for surveys targeting CIOs is traditionally low and has ranged from approximately 7% to 20% [4], [29], [38], [83], [84]. The response rate for the study was 9.4% (676 surveys returned out of 7195 surveys sent) for the U.S. sample and 15.2% (44 surveys returned out of 290 surveys sent) for the French sample. To better match the French respondents who employees) organizations, the were solely from large ( employees) study only included U.S. CIOs from large ( organizations. This resulted in 163 respondents included in the U.S. sample.

196

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 53, NO. 2, MAY 2006

TABLE II SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

In conducting cross-cultural studies, valid comparisons require cross-culturally equivalent research instruments, data collection procedures, research sites, and respondents. Ensuring equivalency is an essential element of cross-cultural studies and is necessary to avoid confounds and contaminating effects of various extraneous elements [85]–[88] such that any differences observed can be attributed to cultural differences. In this study, several steps were taken to ensure equivalency. First, the research instrument and data collection procedures were identical across the two samples. Second, since the French sample conemployees) organizations, we excluded sisted of large ( CIOs from smaller organizations from the analysis of the U.S. sample. Third, the same instrument was utilized in both countries and the same types of respondents were targeted. Fourth, interviews were conducted and the instrument was pretested in each country by the respective researchers to assure that items were interpreted similarly across cultures and there were no cultural biases or concerns about transferability of measures across cultures [89]. The research team for the study was multicultural and included natives of both France and the U.S. further alleviating these concerns [90]. Sample characteristics are summarized in Table II. As can be seen from the table, there are no significant differences between U.S. and French CIOs in terms of age or positional tenure. However, the French CIOs have significantly higher organizational tenures (10.08 years versus 7.36 years for the U.S. CIOs), which is consistent with the greater reliance in France on the organization’s internal labor market [91]. French CIOs are also less likely to be members of the TMT (47.7% versus 65.4%), and are more likely to be male (97.7% of the French CIOs responding are male versus 80.4% for the U.S.). Attesting to the external validity of the French sample, the sample characteristics for the French CIOs are strikingly similar to those obtained in a 2004 survey of French CIOs by McKinsey/CIGREF [76]. B. Operationalization of Research Variables A mail survey and corresponding web-based survey were developed to test the hypotheses. The survey instrument involves a number of items that were modified from previously validated instruments [4], [29], [92] in order to fit the current context. Where validated scales did not exist, we created new items. All constructs were measured using multi-item scales. The appendix shows all the scales used in the study grouped by construct as well as the source of each item.

Structural Systems of Knowing reflect the structural position within the organization that allows the CIO official access to the TMT. This includes the hierarchical level of the CIO as measured by the number of reporting levels between the CIO and the CEO and formal membership of the CIO in the TMT [4]. The hierarchical level of the CIO was calculated by subtracting the hierarchical distance of the CIO from the CEO from a set value of three. Therefore, the hierarchical level of the CIO will range from 1 to 3. For example, a CIO who reports directly to the CEO would have a hierarchical distance of 0 and a hierarchical level of 3, while a CIO who has two or more reporting levels removed from the CEO would have a hierarchical level of 1. Social Systems of Knowing reflect the frequency of informal interaction of the CIO with the TMT [4]. Social systems of knowing was operationalized by asking the CIO to indicate the degree of informal contact, informal interaction, and socialization with TMT members via a seven-point scale that includes the frequency of interaction ranging from “daily” to “never” [4], [29]. CIO Educational Mechanisms reflect the degree to which the CIO educates the TMT on the capabilities of IS to support corporate strategy [29]. This was operationalized via a five-point Likert scale indicating the extent to which the CIOs engage in the following educational activities for the TMT: provide insight regarding emerging IS technologies, assist in improving the TMT’s computer literacy, educate the TMT regarding the capabilities of IS, manage the TMT’s expectations regarding the capabilities of IS, and provide realistic expectations to the TMT regarding the capabilities of IS. Some of these questions were adapted from Smaltz [29], while others resulted from qualitative interviews with CIOs during a pretest. Relational Similarity is the similarity between the CIO and TMT with regard to professional background, experiences, and common interests/experiences [42]. Questions assessed the degree of CIO/TMT similarity on common interests and the CIO’s business functional experience [93]–[98]. Specifically, the proportion of experience the CIO has in business (rather than in IS) is an indicator of functional similarity between the CIO and TMT. The TMT as a collective is assumed to have its dominant functional background in business. Therefore, the CIO and TMT are expected have greater functional similarity when the CIO has a higher proportion of their work experience in business functions. Finally, Shared CIO/TMT Understanding is defined as the degree to which the CIO and TMT have a shared understanding

PRESTON et al.: DEVELOPMENT OF SHARED UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CIO AND TMT IN U.S. AND FRENCH ORGANIZATIONS

197

TABLE III DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

regarding the role of IS within the organization. This was operationalized via a five-point Likert scale on the extent of a common understanding between the CIO and the TMT on the role of IS, its use as a competitive weapon, its role in increasing productivity, and on the prioritization of IS investments. These questions were adapted from Boynton et al. [94] and were refined based on our CIO interviews during the pretest. The survey was validated, in both the United States and France, in a two-step process: it was pretested via a panel of experts to assess content validity; and it was validated through an instrument item sorting exercise to qualitatively evaluate the discriminant validity of each of the measured constructs [99]. In addition, as a pretest and to triangulate the results, ten semistructured interviews with six U.S. IS executives and four French IS executives from different organizations were conducted to gain a richer understanding of the research phenomenon (particularly of the means via which a shared understanding between the CIO and the TMT is developed), to assess the face validity of the instrument, and to assure that questions were interpreted equivalently in France and the U.S. Overall, the interviews provided support for the research model presented in this study and provided additional insight for the researchers. Results of the scale validation will be presented next. VI. DATA ANALYSIS To test the hypotheses of the study, data were analyzed using tests for equality of means, as well as structural equation modeling. Before we present the results of this analysis and evidence of scale validation, we present descriptive statistics for the two samples in Table III. As seen from the table, the two samples differ on several key variables. CIOs in the U.S. sample indicate significantly higher levels of shared understanding with the TMT, are more often formal TMT members, and have significantly higher levels of social interactions. U.S. CIOs also engage more frequently in formal activities to educate the TMT on IS capabilities and indicate a higher level of shared interests. A. Testing for Common Method Bias Post-hoc testing for common method bias was conducted since the CIO was the singular informant in our study and was used to collect data for both the dependent and independent variables.

Two tests were performed to assess common method bias: t-tests of responses on the level of shared understanding (the dependent variable) from matched CIO/TMT member pairs and Harman’s one factor test. One concern with using the CIO as the respondent for the level of shared understanding between the CIO and the TMT is whether the CIO’s responses may be biased. As a result, t-tests were conducted to examine if there were significant differences in the mean responses to the four questions that measure shared understanding. The t-tests were conducted on a sample of responses from matched CIO/TMT member pairs. To do so, data were collected from TMT members from 91 of the 163 U.S. companies in the study.1 Results of the t-tests indicate no significant differences between the CIO and corresponding TMT members for any of the four shared understanding questions. These results increase confidence in the validity of responses obtained by the CIO and in the appropriateness of the CIO as the sole respondent for the study. In addition, Harman’s one factor test [100] was used to examine the extent of common method bias. Results of the recommended principal components factor analysis reveals that there are four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 for both the U.S. data set (accounting for 61.4% of the total variance) and for the French data set (accounting for 67.5% of the total variance). The first factor accounted for 30.4% and 30.5% of the total variance in the U.S. and French studies, respectively. In accordance with Podsakoff and Organ [100], common method variance does not appear to be problematic in either data set since: 1) several factors were identified; 2) the first factor did not account for the majority of the variance; and 3) there is no general factor in the unrotated factor structure. Thus, common method bias does not appear to be a concern in the present study. B. Test for Equality of Means Hypotheses 5 and 6 posit that, based on power distance, there will be a higher level of shared understanding and more formal TMT membership in the U.S. sample than in the French sample. These hypotheses were tested via a test of equality of means. Table IV presents the results of this analysis. Results indicate that there is a significant difference between the two samples on both constructs thus providing support for both hypotheses 5 and 6. 1Data

are not available from French TMT members.

198

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 53, NO. 2, MAY 2006

TABLE IV TEST FOR EQUALITY OF MEANS

TABLE V RESULTS OF CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (CFA)

TABLE VI U.S. STUDY—INTERCONSTRUCT CORRELATIONS

TABLE VII FRENCH STUDY—INTERCONSTRUCT CORRELATIONS

C. Results of Structural Equation Modeling The research model employs both formative and reflective constructs. Each of the independent variables (social systems of knowing, structural systems of knowing, CIO educational mechanisms, and relational similarity) are modeled as formative constructs based on the criteria established by Jarvis et al. [101]: 1) the indicators are viewed as defining characteristics of the construct; 2) changes in the indicators are expected to cause changes in the construct; 3) changes in the construct are not expected to cause changes in the indicators; 4) eliminating an indicator may alter the conceptual domain of the construct; and 5) a change in the value of one of the indicators is not necessarily expected to be associated with a change in all of the other indicators. The dependent variable of shared understanding is modeled as reflective since our interviews with CIOs indicated that CIOs/TMT view these as manifestations of a shared understanding rather than as causes of the construct.

Because of the mix of formative and reflective indicators, PLS Graph was used for data analysis. The psychometric properties of all scales were first assessed within the context of the structural model through confirmatory factor analysis. Results indicate that scales exhibit good psychometric properties and support our modeling of some constructs as formative and others as reflective. These results are presented next followed by results of the structural model. 1) Measurement Model: The psychometric properties of the scales are assessed in terms of item loadings, discriminant validity, and internal consistency. Item loadings and internal consistencies greater than 0.70 are considered acceptable [102]. Scales used in the study largely meet these guidelines as can be seen from the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results for the U.S. and French studies in Table V and composite reliability scores [103] for the U.S. and French studies in Tables VI and VII, respectively. It should be noted that these guidelines for item loading are relevant only for constructs that are modeled

PRESTON et al.: DEVELOPMENT OF SHARED UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CIO AND TMT IN U.S. AND FRENCH ORGANIZATIONS

199

Fig. 2. Structural model—U.S. and French samples.

as reflective. In the case of this research model, the dependent variable of shared understanding is the only reflectively modeled construct. Thus, only the shared understanding items are presented in the CFA in Table V. For the U.S. sample, all four items met the established 0.70 loading level. For the French ) was sample, one item (SU4: priority of IS slightly below the recommended 0.70 loading level. Upon examination of the items for shared understanding, it is clear that these items measure important aspects of these constructs and that dropping one sacrifices the content validity of the scale. Since this item was very close to the designated acceptance level, loads more highly on the shared understanding construct than on other constructs in the CFA, represents an important and distinct facet of the construct, and since dropping items on purely empirical grounds is inadvisable, this item is retained in the analysis. Shared understanding exhibited good internal consistency in both the U.S. (0.895) and French (0.887) models as evidenced by the composite reliability scores in Tables VI and VII, respectively. To assess discriminant validity [104] 1) indicators should load more strongly on their corresponding construct than on other constructs in the model and 2) the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) should be larger than the interconstruct correlations. As shown by comparing the interconstruct correlations and AVE (shaded leading diagonal) in Tables VI and VII, all constructs share more variance with their indicators than with other constructs. Thus, these results point to the discriminant validity of the constructs in the model. 2) Structural Model: To assess the moderating effects of the cultural dimensions of uncertainty avoidance and individualism/ collectivism on the relationships in the model, we tested the U.S. and French samples separately (U.S.: low uncertainty avoid-

ance/low collectivism; France: high uncertainty avoidance/high collectivism) and assessed differences in significance of relationships and values of path coefficients. Results of the structural model for the U.S. and French samples are shown in Fig. 2. The cultural dimensions are included in the figure to remind the reader of the moderating relationships tested. The weights for the indicators of the formatively modeled constructs are shown in Table VIII. The size of the organization (as measured by the sales and the total number of employees) was included in the analysis as a control variable. This control variable was not found to be significant, and was therefore dropped from the model. The PLS results show that for the U.S. study three of the four antecedents were significant predictors of a shared CIO/TMT understanding: structural systems of knowing; CIO educational mechanisms; and CIO/TMT relational similarity. These three constructs explain 26.9% of the variance in CIO/TMT shared understanding. For the French study, two antecedents were significant predictors of shared understanding: social systems of knowing; and CIO educational mechanisms. These two constructs explain 59.0% of the variance in CIO/TMT understanding. Based on individualism/collectivism, Hypothesis 1 posited a stronger relationship between social systems of knowing and shared understanding for French CIOs than for U.S. CIOs. Results of the study support this hypothesis. Whereas social systems of knowing are significant determinants of shared understanding in the French sample, they are not significant in the U.S. sample. Hypotheses 2 and 4, which based on uncertainty avoidance, respectively, posited that structural systems of knowing and relational similarity would more strongly influence shared understanding for French CIOs, were not supported. In fact, the opposite was true for both posited

200

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 53, NO. 2, MAY 2006

TABLE VIII PLS WEIGHTS OF FORMATIVELY MODELED CONSTRUCTS

TABLE IX HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS FOR FRENCH AND U.S. STUDIES IN STRUCTURAL MODEL

relationships: structural systems of knowing and relational similarity were significant predictors of shared understanding for U.S. CIOs, but not for French CIOs. Hypothesis 3 posited that CIO educational mechanisms would have a stronger relationship with shared understanding for French CIOs than U.S. CIOs. Since these paths were significant in both samples, the Chow test was performed to assess whether there are statistical differences in the magnitude of the path coefficients between the French and U.S. samples. Results of the test indicates that the difference in path coefficients was not statistically significant, even though there is a higher path coefficient for educational mechanisms in the French sample (0.540 versus 0.304). Thus, Hypothesis 3 is not supported by the data. Conducting the Chow test to examine difference in significance across path coefficients in PLS has limitations. Research has found that when differences in path coefficients are examined across groups, PLS may confound true differences in path coefficients with differences in latent construct composition and thereby hinder the interpretation of PLS results based on the hypothesized moderation effect [105]. To resolve this issue, researchers have recommended testing the null hypothesis that inter-item covariance matrices within scales are equal, for two independent groups (e.g., French and U.S. CIOs), using Box’s M test of equal covariance matrices [105]. Box’s M test , which indicates was found to be nonsignificant at equality of the covariance matrices across each group. Table IX summarizes the results of Hypothesis testing for the structural model.

VII. LIMITATIONS Before we discuss the results of the study, we acknowledge several limitations. First, we based our hypotheses on cultural differences between the U.S. and France on Hofstede’s [46] published scores on these cultural dimensions. These were initially derived from a survey of IBM employees around the world over 20 years ago. Given the increased globalization, a concern may arise as to whether cultural differences across countries may have changed and as a result these scores do not accurately depict present cultural differences. Though the concern remains, these scores have been reinforced by Hofstede’s more recent work [18], [72] and their temporal stability has been established in numerous studies. Nonetheless, results of the study should be interpreted with this caveat in mind. The response rate, though not atypical of studies focusing on the upper echelons of the organization [4], [38], [83], [84], was relatively low. This raises questions of representativeness of our respondents and generalizability. Though we assessed nonresponse bias by comparing characteristics of responding organizations to those of nonresponding organizations and found no bias, nonresponse bias cannot be entirely ruled out. In addition, the small sample size in the French data set may have reduced the power to detect significant relationships. The fact, however, that two of the four paths in the model are significant, to an extent alleviates this concern. CIOs were the sole respondents in the study. Shared understanding, however, refers to a common understanding between

PRESTON et al.: DEVELOPMENT OF SHARED UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CIO AND TMT IN U.S. AND FRENCH ORGANIZATIONS

members of the TMT and the CIO. Thus, a better measure of shared understanding should encompass both the TMT and CIO point of view. Thus, obtaining data from members of the TMT in a matched pair design from both subject countries would provide a more comprehensive measure of shared understanding. Nonetheless, the comparative nature of the study (i.e., the same potential bias is present in both samples) to some extent alleviates this concern. In addition, we were able to compare the majority of the U.S. CIO respondents’ scores for the four indicators of shared understanding to that of matched TMT pairs and no significant differences were observed. The conceptual and research models are grounded in theory and describe causal relationships within a nomological network. However, the study’s cross-sectional research design cannot fully establish causality and any causal statements made in the study are based on theory. Future research should employ longitudinal studies to better support causality within the nomological network. In addition, future studies should employ multiple methods to more fully understand the phenomenon of interest. VIII. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION This research examined whether the antecedents that lead to a shared CIO/TMT understanding on the role of IS in the organization are culturally invariant. Such a shared understanding has been linked to IS strategic alignment [24], which is a significant concern faced by CIOs across the globe. Since developing a shared understanding is predominantly achieved via social interaction and communication and since culture is a collective social phenomenon we posed the question: are models of antecedents of shared understanding developed and tested in the U.S. culture specific? To this end, the study extended an extant model of shared understanding between CIOs and TMT [8] by including cultural dimensions and tested it in the U.S. and in France. The model included three knowledge exchange mechanisms (structural systems of knowing, social systems of knowing, and CIO educational activity) and relational similarity. Based on Hofstede’s [46] cultural dimensions of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and individualism/collectivism, hypotheses were posed on differences between the U.S. and France in the relationship of these antecedents and shared understanding. Both direct and moderating effects of these cultural dimensions were posited. The effects of the cultural dimensions of individualism/collectivism and power distance emerged as hypothesized. However, none of the three hypothesized effects of uncertainty avoidance were supported: two were opposite than hypothesized and one was nonsignificant though in the posited direction. The models explained 26.9% of the variance in shared understanding in the U.S. sample and 59.0% of the variance in the French sample. The lack of significant difference between the U.S. and France in the strength of the relationship between CIO educational mechanisms and shared CIO/TMT understanding is contrary to our expectations that high uncertainty avoidance

201

countries value expert opinion and prefer more structured educational efforts. A possible explanation for this is that our measures of educational efforts were not interpreted as being formal structured educational mechanisms. Indeed, some were intended to be more general educational objectives (i.e., managing expectations) which could be achieved via several structured or unstructured efforts. It is, therefore, possible that measures of educational mechanisms that focus on structured methods of educating the top management (e.g., vendor demonstrations, seminars) may yield the expected results. We had hypothesized that these educational efforts would be more important for the higher uncertainty French CIOs based on the rationale that formal educational efforts provide a structured means of reducing uncertainty with respect to IS capabilities and as such they would be preferred by cultures higher in uncertainty avoidance. Even though the statistical test was nonsignificant, the difference was in the posited direction with the path coefficient for the French sample being higher than that of the U.S. sample. It is worth pointing out that in both samples, CIO educational efforts are the strongest determinant of shared understanding. This suggests that the CIO has an important lever under his or her control to foster a shared understanding. For both samples, the ability of the CIO to manage TMT expectations on IS capabilities emerged as the single significant educational aspect of the CIO that creates a shared CIO/TMT understanding. None of the other educational endeavors emerged as significant indicators in either the U.S. or French samples, which may indicate that these educational mechanisms do not significantly contribute to a shared understanding. However, two of the indicators in the French sample (improving TMT computer literacy and educating the TMT on IS capabilities), though nonsignificant, had negative weights suggesting that in France these two educational efforts that focus more on technological literacy are viewed distinctly from the rest. On the whole, however, our findings suggest that CIO educational efforts and specifically managing the TMT’s expectations on IS capabilities is a culturally invariant antecedent of shared understanding. In addition to this similarity, culturally determined differences emerge. As hypothesized based on power distance, U.S. CIOs are more likely to be members of the TMT and to have developed a better shared understanding with the TMT of the role of IS in the organization. Further, as per our hypothesis that collectivistic cultures value personal relationships over task, in the French sample, social systems of knowing are a significant antecedent of shared understanding, while in the U.S. sample they are not. Examining the social mechanisms reveals that in France shared understanding emerges through socializing with the TMT and not through frequent informal contact and interaction in the organization. This suggests that shared understanding is achieved only through a deeper level of socialization outside of the immediate work environment—a finding that supports the fact that social capital and the primacy of relationships are significantly more important resources for social action in collectivistic cultures. Thus, in

202

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 53, NO. 2, MAY 2006

collectivistic cultures, the CIO’s informal social network is key in fostering a shared understanding. We find that one indicator (frequency of informal contact) in the French sample, though nonsignificant, had a negative weight suggesting that in France the degree of informal interaction in the organization is viewed in a very different manner from the level of socialization. Contrary to our expectations based on higher uncertainty avoidance in France, structural systems of knowing do not have a significant effect on shared understanding. They are however, significant knowledge exchange mechanisms in the U.S. It is interesting to note that in France, social systems of knowing are significant knowledge exchange mechanisms and structural systems of knowing are not. Conversely, in the U.S. structural systems of knowing are significant knowledge exchange mechanisms but social systems of knowing are not. Examining the specific structural arrangements that underlie structural systems of knowing in the two samples yields interesting results. In the U.S. sample, formal TMT membership is a significant component of structural systems of knowing, while hierarchical level is not. This implies that in the United States, shared understanding emerges through formal membership in the decision making group but not necessarily through hierarchical level. Thus, structural arrangements, specifically formal TMT membership, are key in the U.S. The opposite is true in France: hierarchical level is a significant formal indicator of structural systems of knowing, whereas formal TMT membership is not. This may reflect differences in power distance between the two countries. Thus, it may be valuable for future research to propose cultural difference hypotheses on specific mechanisms (components) that underlie the various antecedents of shared understanding. Contrary to our expectations which were based on the higher uncertainty avoidance in France, relational similarity emerged as a facilitator of shared understanding in the U.S. but not in France. This suggests that similarity in business experience and interests is not necessarily a universal mechanism that promotes a convergence in understanding. In both samples, however, common interests emerge as the sole relational similarity factor promoting shared understanding, while the CIO’s functional experience in business was not found to be significant indicator. It is possible that what constitutes relational similarity is culturally bound. Thus, though common interests and functional business experience may be components of this construct, it is possible that relational similarity is assessed based on other demographic and experiential characteristics such as age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or educational pedigree, and that the salient characteristics vary across cultures. A more comprehensive measure of relational similarity may have resulted in relational similarity being a more significant determinant of shared understanding in the higher uncertainty avoidance French sample. In proposing our hypotheses, for the most part, we examined the effects of each cultural dimension separately. However, in reality, the various cultural dimensions interact and have simultaneous effects. Some of these effects are mutually rein-

forcing and some are mutually opposing. In the current study, we had proposed that both social and structural knowledge exchange mechanisms and relational similarity would be more salient in France. The first argument was based on individualism/collectivism; the latter two on uncertainty avoidance. Our results, while supporting the strong effect of social mechanisms in France, indicate that contrary to our expectations, structural mechanisms for knowledge exchange dominate in the United States. Clearly, the effects of the social knowledge exchange mechanisms totally overwhelmed the effects of structural arrangements on shared understanding for French CIOs. Indeed, in retrospect, it is unlikely that both social and structural mechanisms would be stronger in the French sample. Thus, while one can base hypotheses on single dimensions and while each one individually may make theoretical sense, it is clear that cultural effects are complex and interactive. Therefore, a systemic view of the model and the impact of culture may be required. Indeed, it may be possible that for some phenomena and interactions cultural effects may be irreducible to positing effects based on specific dimensions. The findings lead to several implications for theory and research. The study provides another basis for which to examine how national culture influences organizational practices. Specifically, this study demonstrates how national culture can be incorporated into management and IS theories. Few studies have examined how national culture influences organizational practices within the TMT; this study contributes to the existing body of literature that demonstrates that national culture can be applied to such theories as upper echelons theory, managerial discretion, or strategic alignment theories. Our results show that the development of shared understanding has both culturally invariant and culturally variant aspects. CIO educational efforts was a culturally invariant antecedent to a shared understanding between the CIO and the TMT. Further, given how educational mechanisms are operationalized in the current study, these reflect not necessarily the means of educating (e.g., seminars, lectures, etc.) but rather the specific goal of educational efforts (e.g., manage expectations) leaving the means of achieving these ambiguous. The culturally variant aspects of the study were the social systems of knowing, structural systems of knowing, and relational similarity. Social and structural systems of knowing represent means of interaction. In addition, relational similarity can be seen as a facilitator of social interaction. Thus, it appears that while the objectives of interaction do not vary by culture (at least in our study), the preferred and effective means of interaction via which knowledge is exchanged vary with culture. Much research still remains in understanding how shared understanding is developed and how culture influences its antecedents. The current study focused on a select number of knowledge exchange mechanisms. Clearly, there exist many means via which knowledge can be exchanged between the CIO and the TMT. Further, characteristics of the TMT and of the CIO were not included in the study. However, a CIO’s credibility, communication ability, and political savviness, as well as the level of trust between the CIO and the TMT

PRESTON et al.: DEVELOPMENT OF SHARED UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CIO AND TMT IN U.S. AND FRENCH ORGANIZATIONS

may all be important antecedents of shared understanding and their relative importance may be culturally dependent. We tested moderating and direct effects of culture in France and the United States. Future research should be conducted to assess generalizability of our model across other cultures. In addition, while the effects of power distance and individualism/collectivism were supported, the effects of uncertainty avoidance were not. Additional research can shed light on the role of uncertainty avoidance in the development of shared understanding. In terms of practical contributions, to the extent that CIOs would like to promote a higher level of shared understanding on the role of IS in the organization, they have important levers under their control. Educational effort by the CIO, specifically managing the TMT’s expectations on what IS can deliver, is a culturally invariant key endeavor. In collectivistic cultures, such

203

as France, socializing, networking, building personal relationships, and developing social capital is important in promoting a shared understanding. In such cultures, structural systems of knowing such as hierarchical position are insufficient means of understanding organizational needs and influencing social regulations. Conversely, CIOs in individualistic cultures, such as the U.S., should not be quick to dismiss the importance of social systems of knowing. Social interaction between the CIO and the TMT, while not directly related to shared understanding in our sample, may be an antecedent to other potentially important relationships such as a trusting relationship between the CIO and members of the TMT. Though we cannot generalize based on uncertainty avoidance, our findings suggest that in the U.S. developing mutual interests with other members of the TMT and formal TMT membership facilitates interaction and promotes greater shared understanding.

APPENDIX I SOURCES OF CONSTRUCT ITEMS

204

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 53, NO. 2, MAY 2006

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank Special Issue Editor Dr. R. T. Watson, as well as the three anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. In addition, we are most thankful to R. Boinier, a former Ph.D. student, who helped with the translation of the questionnaires into French and with the data collection. REFERENCES [1] V. Sambamurthy and R. W. Zmud, IT Management Competency Assessment: A Tool for Creating Business Value Through IT. Morristown, NJ: Financial Executives Research Foundation, 1994. [2] E. Brynjolfsson and L. Hitt, “Paradox lost? Firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending,” Manage. Sci., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 541–459, 1996. [3] D. F. Feeny, “Understanding the CEO/CIO relationship,” MIS Quart., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 435–449, 1992. [4] C. P. Armstrong and V. Sambamurthy, “Information technology assimilation in firms: The influence of senior leadership and IT infrastructures,” Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 304–328, 1999. [5] D. F. Feeny and L. P. Willcocks, “Core IS capabilities for exploiting information technology,” Sloan Manage. Rev., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 9–22, 1998. [6] C. Wang, Techno Vision: The Executive’s Survival Guide to Understanding and Managing Information Technology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994. [7] Y. P. Gupta, “The chief executive officer and the chief information officer: The strategic partnership,” J. Inf. Technol., vol. 6, pp. 128–139, 1991. [8] D. Preston and E. Karahanna, “Mechanisms for the development of shared mental models between the CIO and top management team,” in Proc. 25th Annu. Int. Conf. Inf. Syst., 2004, pp. 465–480. [9] C. P. Deans and D. A. Ricks, “MIS research: A model for incorporating the international dimension,” J. High Technol. Manage. Rev., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 57–81, 1991. [10] D. P. Ford, C. E. Connelly, and D. B. Meister, “Information systems research and Hofstede’s culture’s consequences: An uneasy and incomplete partnership,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 8–26, Feb. 2003. [11] K. S. Raman and R. T. Watson, “National culture, IS, and organizational implications,” in Global Information Systems and Technology: Focus on the Organization and its Functional Areas, P. C. Deans and K. R. Karwan, Eds. Harrisburg, PA: Idea Group, 1994, pp. 493–513. [12] R. T. Watson, “Key issues in information systems management: An international perspective,” J. Manage. Inf. Syst., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 91–116, 1997. [13] R. B. Gallupe and F. Tan, “A research manifesto for global information management,” J. Global Inf. Manage., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 5–18, 1999. [14] K. Nelson and T. Clark, “Cross-cultural issues in information systems research: A research program,” J. Global Inf. Manage., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 19–29, 1994. [15] R. T. Watson, T. H. Ho, and K. S. Raman, “Culture: A fourth dimension of group support systems,” Commun. ACM, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 44–55, 1994. [16] N. Boyacigiller and N. J. Adler, “The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global context,” Acad. Manage. Rev., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 262–290, 1991. [17] B. C. Y. Tan, “Reducing status effects with computer-mediated communication: Evidence from two distinct national cultures,” J. Manage. Inf. Syst., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 119–141, 1998b. [18] G. Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991. [19] R. M. Steers, “Organizational sciences in a global environment: Future directions,” in Organizational Science Abroad: Constraints and Perspectives, C. A. B. Osigweh, Ed. New York: Plenum, 1989, pp. 293–304. [20] P. Carlson, B. Kahn, and F. Rowe, “Organizational impacts of new communication technology: A comparison of cellular phone adoption in France and in the United States,” J. Global Inf. Manage., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 19–30, 1999. [21] J. Karimi and Y. P. Gupta, “The congruence between a firm’s competitive strategy and information technology leader’s rank and role,” J. Manage. Inf. Syst., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 63–89, 1996.

[22] K. Nelson and J. G. Cooprider, “The contribution of shared knowledge to is group performance,” MIS Quart., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 409–433, 1996. [23] A. M. Johnson and A. L. Lederer, “Two predictors of CEO/CIO convergence,” in Proc. SIGMIS, 2003. [24] D. Preston, Shared Mental Models Between the Chief Information Officer and Top Management Team: Toward Information Systems Strategic Alignment. Athens, GA: College of Business, Univ. Georgia, 2004, pp. 1–179. [25] A. L. Lederer and A. L. Mendelow, “Information resource planning: Overcoming difficulties in identifying top management’s objectives,” MIS Quart., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 388–400, 1987. [26] J. Nahapiet and S. Ghoshal, “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage,” Acad. Manage. Rev., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 242–266, 1998. [27] J. C. Spender, “Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm,” Strategic Manage. J., vol. 17, pp. 45–62, 1996. [28] C. P. Armstrong, Creating Business Value Through Information Technology: The Effects of the Chief Information Officer and Top Management Team Characteristics. Tallahassee, FL: College of Business, Florida State Univ., 1995, pp. 1–184. [29] D. H. Smaltz, Antecedents of CIO Effectiveness: A Role-Based Perspective. Tallahassee, FL: College of Business, Florida State Univ., 1999, pp. 1–170. [30] M. J. Earl and D. F. Feeny, “Is your CIO adding value?,” Sloan Manage. Rev., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 11–21, 1994. [31] R. Madhavan and R. Grover, “From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: New product development as knowledge management,” J. Marketing, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1–13, 1998. [32] J. C. Henderson, “Plugging into strategic partnerships: The critical IS connection,” Sloan Manage. Rev., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 7–19, 1990. [33] M. R. Lind and R. W. Zmud, “The influence of a convergence in understanding between technology providers and users on information technology innovativeness,” Org. Sci., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 195–218, 1991. [34] J. F. Rockart, “The changing role of the information systems executive: A critical success factors perspective,” Sloan Manage. Rev., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 3–14, 1982. [35] A. L. Lederer and A. L. Mendelow, “Convincing top management of the strategic potential of information systems,” MIS Quart., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 524–535, 1988. [36] B. L. Martin, “The end of delegation? Information technology and the CEO,” Harv. Bus. Rev., vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 161–169, 1995. [37] G. Rifkin and J. Kurtzman, “Is your e-business plan radical enough?,” Sloan Manage. Rev., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 91–96, 2002. [38] H. G. Enns, “CIO lateral influence behaviors: Gaining peer’s commitment to strategic information systems,” MIS Quart., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 155–176, 2003. [39] A. S. Tsui and C. A. O’Reilly, III, “Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads,” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 402–424, 1989. [40] G. P. Hodgkinson and G. Johnson, “Exploring the mental models of competitive strategists: The case for a processual approach,” J. Manage. Studies, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 525–552, 1994. [41] C. Markides, “Strategic innovation,” Sloan Manage. Rev., vol. 38, no. 3, 1997. [42] M. N. Young and A. K. Buchholtz, “Firm performance and CEO pay: Relational demography as a moderator,” J. Managerial Issues, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 296–314, 2002. [43] D. A. Harrison and K. H. Price, “Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion,” Acad. Manage. J., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 96–108, 1998. [44] D. A. Harrison, “Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning,” Acad. Manage. J., vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1029–1046, 2002. [45] D. Straub, “Toward a theory-based measurement of culture,” J. Global Inf. Manage., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 13–24, 2002. [46] G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1980. [47] T. Parsons, The Evolution of Societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1977. [48] S. Ronen and O. Shenkar, “Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis,” Acad. Manage. Rev., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 435–454, 1985. [49] V. J. Shackleton and A. H. Ali, “Work-related values of managers: A test of the hofstede model,” J. Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 109–118, 1990.

PRESTON et al.: DEVELOPMENT OF SHARED UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CIO AND TMT IN U.S. AND FRENCH ORGANIZATIONS

[50] P. C. Earley, Culture, Self-Identity, and Work. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1993. [51] P. C. Earley, “Self or group? Cultural effects of training on selfefficacy and performance,” Admin. Sci. Quart., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 89–117, 1994. [52] B. L. Kedia and R. S. Bhagat, “Cultural constraints on transfer of technology across nations: Implications for research in international and comparative management,” Acad. Manage. Rev., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 559–571, 1988. [53] H. L. Tosi and T. Greckhamer, “Culture and CEO compensation,” Org. Sci., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 657–671, 2004. [54] G. DeVreede, N. Jones, and R. J. Mgaya, “Exploring the application and acceptance of group support systems in Africa,” J. Manage. Inf. Syst., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 197–234, 1999. [55] R. D. Galliers, S. Madon, and R. Rashid, “Information systems and culture: Applying ‘stages of growth’ concepts to development administration,” Inf. Technol. Development, vol. 8, pp. 89–100, 1998. [56] H. Hasan and G. Ditsa, “The impact of culture on the adoption of IT: An interpretive study,” J. Global Inf. Manage., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 5–15, 1999. [57] M. Keil, “A cross-cultural study on escalation of commitment behavior in software projects,” MIS Quart., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 295–325, 2000. [58] D. E. Leidner and S. Carlsson, “Mexican and Swedish managers’ perceptions of the impact of EIS on organizational intelligence,” Decision Sci., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 633–661, 1999. [59] I. P. L. Png, B. C. Y. Tan, and K. Wee, “Dimensions of national culture and corporate adoption of IT infrastructure,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 36–45, Feb. 2001. [60] S. Slaughter and S. Ang, “Information systems employment structures in the USA and Singapore: A cross-cultural comparison,” Inf., Technol., People, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 17–36, 1995. [61] D. W. Straub, “The effect of culture on IT diffusion: E-mail and fax in Japan and the U.S.,” Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 23–47, 1994. [62] B. C. Y. Tan, “Computer-mediated communication and majority influence: Assessing the impact in an individualistic and a collectivist culture,” Manage. Sci., vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1263–1278, 1998a. [63] B. C. Y. Tan, H. J. Smith, and M. Keil, “Reporting bad news about software projects: Impact of organizational climate and information asymmetry in an individualistic and collectivist culture,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 65–77, Feb. 2003. [64] J. B. Thatcher, “Culture, overload and personal innovativeness with information technology: Extending the nomological net,” J. Comput. Inf. Syst., pp. 74–81, Fall 2003. [65] G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1984. [66] L. G. Zucker, “The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence,” Amer. Sociol. Rev., vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 726–743. [67] J. Shaw, “A cognitive categorization model for the study of intercultural management,” Acad. Manage. Rev., vol. 15, pp. 626–645, 1990. [68] N. J. Adler, International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College, 1997. [69] A. Laurent, “The cross-cultural puzzle of international human resource management,” Human Resource Manage., vol. 25, pp. 91–102, 1986. [70] R. J. House, “Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project globe,” in Advances in Global Leadership, B. Mobley, Ed. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 1999. [71] D. Sirota and M. J. Greenwood, “Understanding your overseas workforce,” Harv. Bus. Rev., pp. 53–60, Jan.–Feb. 1971. [72] G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 2001. [73] Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education Transl.:P. Bourdieu, “The forms of capital”J. G. Richardson, Ed. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1986, pp. 241–258. [74] I. Yeung and R. Tung, Achieving Business Success in Confucian Societies: The Importance of Guanxi (Connections). New York: American Management Association, 1996. [75] M. Haire, E. E. Ghiselli, and L. W. Porter, Managerial Thinking: An International Study. New York: Wiley, 1966. [76] Relational Dynamics Around Information Systems Within Management Teams of Major French Companies Transl.:MacKinsey/CIGREF Oct. 2004. [Online]. Available: www.cigref.fr [77] P. Besson and F. Rowe, “ERP project dynamics and enacted dialogue: Perceived understanding, perceived leeway and the nature of task-related conflicts,” Database: Advances in Information Systems, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 47–66, 2001.

205

[78] M. Brossard and M. Maurice, “Is there a universal model of organizational structure?,” Int. Studies of Manage. Org., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 11–46, 1976. [79] C. Pavett and T. Morris, “Management styles within a multinational corporation: A five country comparative study,” Human Relations, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 1171–1193, 1995. [80] F. H. Harbison and E. W. Burgess, Casa Grace in Peru. Washington, DC: National Planning Association, 1954. [81] V. Grover, “The chief information officer: A study of managerial roles,” J. Manage. Inf. Syst., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 107–131, 1993. [82] S. Finkelstein and D. Hambrick, Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and Their Effects on Organizations. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing, 1996. [83] Y. Chan, “Business strategic orientation, information systems, strategic orientation, and strategic alignment,” Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 125–151, 1997. [84] G. Pervan, “How chief executive officers in large organizations view the management of their information systems,” J. Inf. Technol., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 95–110, 1998. [85] E. Karahanna, J. R. Evaristo, and M. Srite, “Methodological issues in MIS cross-cultural research,” J. Global Inf. Manage., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 48–56, 2002. [86] F. van de Vijver and K. Leung, Methods and Data Analysis for CrossCultural Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1997. [87] Y. H. Poortinga and F. van de Vijver, “Explaining cross-cultural differences: Bias analysis and beyond,” J. Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 259–282, 1987. [88] F. van de Vijver and Y. H. Poortinga, “Toward an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment,” Eur. J. Psychological Assessment, vol. 13, pp. 21–29, 1997. [89] C. Riordan and R. Vandenberg, “A central question in cross-cultural research: Do employees of different cultures interpret work related measures in an equivalent manner?,” J. Manage., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 643–672, 1994. [90] N. J. Adler, Advances in International Comparative Management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1984, pp. 31–67. [91] R. Burt, R. Hogarth, and C. Michaud, “The social capital of French and American managers,” Org. Sci., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 123–147, 2000. [92] A. C. Boynton, “The influence of IT management practice on IT use in large organizations,” MIS Quart., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 299–320, 1994. [93] K. A. Bantel and S. E. Jackson, “Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference?,” Strategic Manage. J., vol. 10, pp. 107–125, 1989. [94] A. I. Murray, “Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance,” Strategic Manage. J., vol. 10, pp. 125–142, 1989. [95] K. M. Eisenhardt and C. B. Schoonhoven, “Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures,” Admin. Sci. Quart., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 504–530, 1990. [96] S. L. Jarvenpaa and B. Ives, “Executive involvement and participation in the management of information technology,” MIS Quart., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 205–228, 1991. [97] J. G. Michel and D. C. Hambrick, “Diversification posture and top management team characteristics,” Acad. Manage. J., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 9–38, 1992. [98] K. G. Smith, “Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication,” Admin. Sci. Quart., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 412–438, 1994. [99] G. C. Moore and I. Benbasat, “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation,” Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 192–223, 1991. [100] P. M. Podsakoff and D. W. Organ, “Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects,” J. Manage., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 531–544, 1986. [101] C. B. Jarvis, “A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research,” J. Consumer Res., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 199–219, 2003. [102] C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, “Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error,” J. Marketing Res., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–50, 1981. [103] C. E. Werts, “Intraclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 34, pp. 25–33, 1974. [104] W. Chin, “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling,” in Modern Methods for Business Research, G. A. Marcoulides, Ed. Lawrence, NJ: Erlbaum, 1998.

206

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 53, NO. 2, MAY 2006

[105] T. A. Carte and C. J. Russell, “In pursuit of moderation: Nine common errors and their solutions,” MIS Quart., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 479–503, 2003. [106] S. Finkelstein and D. C. Hambrick, “Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion,” Admin. Sci. Quart., vol. 35, pp. 484–503, 1990.

David S. Preston received the B.S. degree in engineering and the M.Eng. degree from the University of Florida, Gainesville, and the M.B.A. degree and the Ph.D. degree in management information systems (MIS) from the University of Georgia, Athens. He is currently an Assistant Professor of MIS at Texas Christian University, Fort Worth. His work has been published in the ICIS Proceedings, Journal of Logistics Information Management, Journal of Information Science and Technology, and IS Control Journal. His research interests include the role and impact of the chief information officer (CIO) in the organization, IS strategic alignment, and the impact of IS on firm performance.

Elena Karahanna received the B.S. degree in computer science and the M.B.A. degree from Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, and the Ph.D. degree in management information systems from the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, with specializations in organization theory and organizational communication. She is an Associate Professor of Management Information Systems (MIS) and Director of International Business Programs at the Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens. Her

work has been published in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, Management Science, MIS Quarterly, Organization Science, and elsewhere. Her current research interests include the acceptance of information technologies, IS leadership, and cross-cultural issues. Dr. Karahanna currently serves as Senior Editor for MIS Quarterly and the Journal of AIS, and serves or has served on the Editorial Boards of Information Systems Research, the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, the European Journal of Information Systems, and Computer Personnel.

Frantz Rowe received the M.A. degree in economics and the M.S. degree in engineering from the University of California at Berkeley, and the Ph.D. degree from the University of Paris, Paris, France. He currently serves as a Professor of Information Systems at the University of Nantes, Nantes, France. He has published articles in scientific journals including the Journal of Information Technology, Database, Accounting Management and IT, Journal of Global Information Management, Journal of Decision Systems, Transportation Research, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, among others, and several books. He was the first Director of the graduate program in IS at the Management Faculty, University of Nantes, and currently directs the Ph.D. program in Management. He has been a member of the Board of the University of Nantes and in charge of the IS Policy. He cofounded the Association Information et Management and has served as its Vice President for Research. His research interests pertain to information and communication systems use and their effects on organizations, and to IS project dynamics and change.