Content uploaded by Martin Wiener
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martin Wiener on Jan 06, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Heumann et al. Cultural Differences, Control, and IS Offshoring
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Detroit, Michigan August 4th-7th 2011 1
The Role of Cultural Differences and Cultural Intelligence
in Controlling IS Offshoring Projects: A Theoretical Model
Jakob Heumann
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg
jakob.heumann@wiso.uni-erlangen.de
Dr. Martin Wiener
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg
martin.wiener@wiso.uni-erlangen.de
Dr. Ulrich Remus
University of Canterbury
ulrich.remus@canterbury.ac.nz
ABSTRACT
Cultural differences between outsourcers and vendor firms in offshore locations pose unique management challenges. One of
these challenges is to find a control strategy that fits the cultural setting. However, most of the previous research has analyzed
cultural and control issues separately from one another. The objective of this paper is to bring together these two distinct
research streams. The result is a conceptual model describing the relationships between cultural differences and the choice of
different control modes in IS offshoring projects. Propositions are derived from organizational control and national culture
theory. In particular, we introduce the concept of cultural intelligence as moderating the relationship between cultural
differences and the choice of control. The resulting conceptual model developed in this paper makes important theoretical
contributions to IS offshoring and serves as a basis for future empirical research.
Keywords
IS offshoring, control theory, managerial control, cultural dimensions, cultural differences, cultural intelligence.
INTRODUCTION
IS offshoring (ISO)—defined as the migration of all or part of the development, maintenance and delivery of IS services to a
vendor that is located in a country different from that of the client (Dibbern, Goles, Hirschheim and Jayatilaka, 2004)—
continues to be an important trend in the near future (King and Torkzadeh, 2008). ISO promises manifold benefits, such as
cost reduction, access to highly skilled professionals, and time-to-market reduction (e.g., Rao, Poole, Raven and Lockwood,
2006). However, ISO brings with it many risks that can compromise the expected benefits (Dibbern, Winkler and Heinzl,
2008). One of the major risk factors in ISO are cultural differences between client and vendor personnel (Dibbern et al.,
2008) – cultural differences can even “make or break an offshore project” (Gupta and Raval, 1999).
Thus, in order to be successful, ISO projects require that client and vendor effectively collaborate across cultural boundaries
(Nicholson and Sahay, 2004). One powerful approach for effectively managing client-vendor relationships in ISO projects is
exercising control (Sabherwal and Choudhury, 2006). Here, the client’s control over the vendor is a particularly important
instrument to ensure project success (Choudhury and Sabherwal, 2003). However, the use of control is complicated by
differences in national culture which impact the behavior and coordination of vendor employees as well as the cooperation
and communication with them (Winkler, Dibbern and Heinzl, 2008). Thus, for ISO project managers it is crucial to build up
high levels of cultural intelligence to better understand differences in cultural values, which in turn help selecting and
executing suitable modes of control (Beck et al. 2008).
Many studies in the extant literature acknowledge the importance of cultural differences in ISO (e.g., Krishna, Sahay and
Walsham, 2004; Nicholson and Sahay, 2001). In addition, because ISO “entails complex issues of geographical, cultural, and
lingual differences” (Rustagi et al. 2008, p.139) there is further need for research on control in ISO. Answering this call from
Rustagi et al. there is a growing body of literature focusing on control issues in the context of outsourcing and offshoring in
recent years (e.g. Gopal and Gosain, 2009, Tiwana and Keil, 2010, Tiwana, 2010). However, due to the fact that the majority
Heumann et al. Cultural Differences, Control, and IS Offshoring
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Detroit, Michigan August 4th-7th 2011 2
of prior research has analyzed cultural and project management (control) issues separately from one another (Gregory, 2010)
there is still a large gap in bringing these two issues together and investigating how cultural differences influence the choice
of control in ISO projects. This is even more surprising as in a recent Delphi study “cultural differences and control practices
in ISO” has been identified among the top research issues (King and Torkzadeh, 2008). In an effort to fill this gap, we (1)
conduct a state-of-the-art literature review on control and culture, and (2) develop an integrated model which interlinks the
findings from the literature analysis.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
National Cultural Differences
According to Schein (1985), basic assumptions are at the core of culture and represent the belief systems that individuals
have toward human behavior, relationships, reality, and truth. Values reflect the underlying cultural assumptions and, thus,
represent a manifestation of culture. Since values are more easily studied than basic assumptions (Schein, 1985), the majority
of scholars conceptualize culture in terms of reference group value orientations (Jackson, 1995), such as value dimensions of
national culture (e.g., Hofstede, 1980). Such cultural dimensions were found to be useful in modeling culture-related issues in
globally distributed projects (Carmel, 1999). Accordingly, research on cultural issues in IS has focused primarily on value
dimensions or variables at the national level of analysis (Keil, Tan, Wei, Saarinen, Tuunainen and Wassenaar, 2000). To be
consistent with this predominant approach to studying culture in IS we adopt a value-based approach, as well. This strategy
will enable us to use this rich foundation of culture theory as a framework for our subsequent analysis of the literature.
Based on this values approach, cultural differences refer to the extent to which the members of two distinct groups differ on
one or more cultural dimensions, i.e., their shared values, norms, beliefs and assumptions that help them organize and
structure the world (Roberts and Wasti, 2002). These shared norms and values serve as generally accepted patterns of
behavior and thus influence the behavior of the members of a social group (Murdock, 1940). Accordingly, culturally affected
behavioral differences may be observed when members of two distinct cultural groups (such as client and vendor personnel
from different countries) work together, as is the case in ISO (Dibbern et al., 2008).
Cultural Intelligence
Research on cross-cultural interaction at the individual level highlights the importance of learning how to cope with cultural
differences and adapting to new cultural settings (Raghuram, 2006). Individuals with high cultural intelligence, i.e., a
person’s capability to be effective across cultural settings (Kok-Yee and Earley, 2006), are able to determine the culture-
specific elements of behavior and adapt themselves to this behavior (Earley and Mosakowski, 2004). Findings from studies in
this context (e.g., Krishna et al., 2004; Nicholson and Sahay, 2004) suggest that developing cultural intelligence through
cross-cultural adaption and learning helps to mitigate the risks of cultural differences, and even leads to superior performance
of the project members (Vlaar, van Fenema and Tiwari, 2008).
Managerial Control
According to Jaworski (1988) and Ouchi (1979), control refers to any attempt to motivate individuals to behave in a manner
consistent with organizational objectives. This view of control is rooted in organization and agency theories, and implies that
the controller is taking some action in order to regulate or adjust the behavior of the controllee (Kirsch, 1996). Accordingly, a
control situation typically involves an individual exercising control (controller) and a target of control (controllee) (Kirsch,
2004).
Organizational control theory posits that four main modes of control may be used in managing economic activity—behavior,
outcome, clan, and self-control (Ouchi, 1979; Eisenhardt, 1985). Behavior and outcome control are classified as formal
control modes (Eisenhardt, 1985; Ouchi, 1979). In behavior control, the controller seeks to influence the process to achieve
the desired outputs by explicitly prescribing specific rules and procedures, monitoring their implementation, and rewarding
the controllee based on the extent to which the implementation complies with them (Kirsch, 1996). In outcome control, only
the outputs (both interim and final) are measured and evaluated. Here, the controller specifies the parameters of the desired
outcome and rewards the controllee based on the observed outcome (Eisenhardt, 1985; Kirsch, 1997). Clan and self-control
are classified as informal control modes. Clan control refers to mechanisms that minimize the differences in objectives
(Eisenhardt, 1985) by “promulgating common values, beliefs, and philosophy within […] a group of individuals” (Kirsch,
1997, p. 217). Self-control is a function of intrinsic motivation (Manz, Mossholder and Luthans, 1987) as well as individual
standards and objectives (Jaworski, 1988).
Heumann et al. Cultural Differences, Control, and IS Offshoring
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Detroit, Michigan August 4th-7th 2011 3
Controllers often use the four control modes in combination, creating a portfolio of control (Kirsch, 1997). Within a portfolio,
each control mode can itself be implemented through multiple control mechanisms (Kirsch, 1997). The choice of controls is
influenced by different factors in the project, stakeholder, and global contexts (Kirsch, 1997, 2004). Factors related to the
global context include priority differences among stakeholders from different countries, as well as geographic, time zone, and
cultural differences.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The relationship between cultural differences and the choice of control is still not well understood (Kirsch, 2004). In order to
gain a better understanding of this relationship, we conducted a structured search and analysis of the extant literature on
cultural issues and control in ISO. Leidner and Kayworth (2006), and Webster and Watson (2002) served as general
guidelines for conducting a state-of-the-art literature review. In a first step, we solely selected empirical studies where
cultural or control issues in ISO were significant themes. This strategy was adopted in order to avoid having an
unmanageable sample of articles with limited value. In the second step, the literature search was carried out and the relevant
works were selected for the analysis. For the search of relevant articles, we focused on the top international IS journals based
on the “senior scholars’ basket” (AIS, 2010), and other renowned and niche IS journals. Because of the newness of our
research topic, we also included major IS conferences (e.g., ICIS) in our review. To ensure that our bibliography was as
inclusive as possible, we also considered top management journals, such as Academy of Management Journal. For the search
of empirical articles, each issue and volume of the selected journals and conferences was screened over a time period of 15
years (1995-2010). Additionally, the social science citation index reference search database was used to find more recently
published articles that cite relevant works. Finally, the bibliographies of the selected articles were reviewed for additional
references.
The selected articles were also screened on key themes regarding cultural differences and control. The identified culture and
control themes were then linked to generally accepted cultural value dimensions (e.g., Hofstede, 1980) and control modes
(e.g., Kirsch, 1997), respectively. The cultural themes we identified from the literature relate to four cultural dimensions:
power distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1980), and mono-/polychronic time perception
(Hall and Hall, 1990). Regarding organizational control, three control modes emerged from the analysis of the collected
articles: behavior, outcome, and clan control. Apparently, self-control plays a less important role in this context. One
explanation might be that this control mode is considered less of a strategic management tool as it is difficult to accurately
assess and influence (Gopal and Gosain, 2009).
First, three general findings emerged from the literature review: (1) outcome control seems to be more frequently used than
behavior control for tackling problems arising from cross-cultural differences (Prifling, Gregory and Beck, 2008), (2) specific
control mechanisms seem to be added when cultural differences become evident (Kirsch, 2004), and (3) informal controls
may help to bridge cultural differences (Tractinsky and Jarvenpaa, 1995). Second, based on the literature review and the
identification of cultural value dimensions and control modes explained above, we developed the following propositions.
MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND PROPOSITIONS
Individualism/Collectivism
Individualism is defined as the extent to which people prefer to act as individuals rather than as members of groups
(Hofstede, 2001). In individualist cultures, ties between individuals are loose and personal time/accomplishments are valued.
Individualists keep their own and their organization’s interests and goals in line because they expect personal reward and
recognition (Trompenaars, 1994). In contrast, collectivist cultures find people integrated into strong, cohesive groups, and
group goals/interests are more important than individual desires (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai and Lucca, 1988).
This concept stipulates the formation of in-group/out-group behavior (Hui and Triandis, 1986). Chen, Peng and Saparito
(2002) suggest that collectivists distinguish between those they are personally related to (in-group) and those they are not
(out-group). Different levels of individualism/collectivism between controller and controllee may cause in-group/out-group
behavior. In ISO projects, the client and the vendor may represent two separate in-groups. This means that a process of
convergence is required to form a collective (clan) of two distinct (in-)groups (Dibbern et al., 2008). In-group/out-group
behavior may also hinder the development of trust (Huang and Ocker, 2006), which is important as it is a prerequisite for
project success (Sabherwal, 1999). In order to restore trust between project members and ultimately increase project success,
clan control mechanisms like face-to-face meetings may be used (Damian and Zowghi, 2003). More evidence can be drawn
from Kirsch’s (2004) study on the dynamics of control. Here, it was reported that the (collectivist) Asian controllees rejected
Heumann et al. Cultural Differences, Control, and IS Offshoring
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Detroit, Michigan August 4th-7th 2011 4
the (individualist) U.S. client manager’s control style. These problems in control transfer may be interpreted as a result of the
in-group/out-group effect. The controller addressed this issue by implementing clan control. This suggests:
Proposition 1: The higher the differences in collectivism the greater the exercise of clan control.
Power Distance
Power distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members within a group or society expect and accept that
power is distributed unequally (Hofstede, 1980). In low power distance cultures, subordinates participate more in decision
making, prefer a consultative relationship, and are likely to contradict their superiors (Hofstede, 1991). In contrast, in high
power distance cultures, superiors make decisions without consultation; subordinates feel less comfortable in debating and
contradicting, and expect to be told what to do (Hofstede, 1991).
The importance of power distance for the management of ISO projects has already been emphasized in various studies (e.g.,
Krishna et al., 2004; Nicholson and Sahay, 2001). In a number of studies on ISO (e.g., Beck, Gregory and Prifling, 2008;
Dibbern et al., 2008; Prifling et al., 2008; Winkler et al., 2008) it was found that clients affected by problems arising from
differences in power distance often increase their specification efforts regarding rules and procedures, and intensify the
evaluation of output quality and timing. These are indications that formal controls are used when differences in power
distance emerge. ISO client managers also seem to lay more emphasis on building up close interpersonal working
relationships with the vendor project members when differences in power distance surface (Beck et al., 2008). This suggests
that clan control mechanisms (e.g., rituals, ceremonies, and socialization) are used to alleviate differences in power distance.
Therefore we suggest:
Proposition 2: The higher the differences in power distance the greater the exercise of behavior control (a) and/or outcome
control (b) and/or clan control (c).
Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance describes the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown
situations. Individuals with low uncertainty avoidance believe that problems can be solved without formal rules (Hofstede,
1980). They do not seem to be dependent on experts, favor a less structured environment, and prefer rules only in situations
of absolute necessity (Hofstede, 1991). In contrast, individuals with high uncertainty avoidance prefer rule orientation and
employment stability, and exhibit stress when trying to explain, mitigate and minimize the uncertainty that is inherent to life
(Srite and Karahanna, 2006).
Different levels of uncertainty avoidance may trigger increased communication efforts (i.e., higher frequency in question-
feedback-reassurance loops). On the one hand, a controllee high in uncertainty avoidance is expected to seek close
communication with the controller, pose questions, and ask for feedback, making it easier for the controller to reveal the
controllee’s actual work behavior. On the other hand, a controller with high levels of uncertainty avoidance will exercise
tighter control to feel secure, thereby improving her/his understanding of appropriate behaviors. The understanding and
observability of behavior is in turn crucial for introducing behavior controls (Kirsch, 1996, 1997). In addition, findings from
two recent studies (Beck et al., 2008; Prifling et al., 2008) suggest that tight controlling and testing in general, as well as
formal control mechanisms in particular seem to be exercised when differences in uncertainty avoidance become evident.
This suggests:
Proposition 3: The higher the differences in uncertainty avoidance the greater the exercise of behavior control (a) and/or
outcome control (b).
Mono-/Polychronic Time Perception
This dimension distinguishes between monochronic and polychronic time perception (Hall and Hall, 1990). In polychronic
cultures, people are involved in many different activities with different people at the same time (Hall and Hall, 1990). They
view time commitment only as an objective to achieve when possible, and make changes to plans when needed; getting to
know their counterparts and building a relationship is more important than adhering to a preset schedule (Hall and Hall,
1990). In contrast, monochronic individuals do only one thing at a time, and take time and deadlines seriously (Hall and Hall,
1990). For them, time is structured, linear, and sequential (Trompenaars, 1994). They set agendas for meetings, stick to time
plans, and schedule negotiations in ways that create psychological pressure in order to arrive at a decision by a certain date
(Hall and Hall, 1990).
Heumann et al. Cultural Differences, Control, and IS Offshoring
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Detroit, Michigan August 4th-7th 2011 5
Beck et al. (2008) suggest that the so called “cascading deadline approach” (i.e., monitoring project progress by setting
multiple deadlines for the same deliverable and splitting up deliverables into manageable sub-tasks)—typically associated
with behavior control—is effective when differences in time orientation emerge. This proposes:
Proposition 4: The higher the differences in time perception the greater the exercise of behavior control.
Cultural Intelligence as Moderator
Formal controls are mainly driven by the client project manager’s cultural intelligence (Beck et al., 2008). Accordingly, high
levels of cultural intelligence might lead to a better understanding of the controllee’s cultural values and enable the controller
to better select and execute suitable modes of control (Beck et al., 2008). Additionally, it was found that boundary
spanning—which initiates the development of cultural intelligence (Earley and Ang, 2003)—plays a significant role in
exercising control more effectively in ISO projects (Gopal and Gosain, 2009). We therefore suggest that the controller’s
choice of controls, which is affected by differences in the controller and controllee’s culture is moderated through the ability
of cross-cultural adaption based on cultural intelligence.
Proposition 5: Cultural intelligence moderates the relationship between cultural differences and the choice of controls.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In this study, we analyzed the extant literature and propose a model to explain the relationships between national cultural
differences, cultural intelligence, and the choice of control modes in an ISO context. Our model advances two findings that
describe the relationships between these variables: (1) cultural differences influence the choice of controls (Kirsch, 2004),
and (2), the development of cultural intelligence drives controls (Beck et al., 2008) and influences their effectiveness (Gopal
and Gosain, 2009). In our theoretical model depicted in Figure 1, we propose that differences in cultural values between the
controller and controllee may influence the controller’s selection of different control modes. In particular, we argue that
cultural intelligence and the choice of controls are intertwined with each other in that a controller with high cultural
intelligence takes into account the cultural setting when selecting appropriate controls. Thus, the controller’s cultural
intelligence is expected to moderate the extent to which cultural differences affect the selection of controls.
Cultural Differ ences
-Individualism/Collectivism
-Power Distance
-UncertaintyAvoidance
-Mono-/PolychronicTime Perception
Choice of Control
-BehaviorControl
-OutcomeControl
-Clan Control
Cultural Intelligence
Propositions 1, 2, 3, 4
Proposition 5
Figure 1. Theoretical Model
There are several limitations to be taken into account. First, it should be kept in mind that there might be additional cultural
value dimensions not conceptualized in this study that may be suitable to reflect national cultural differences (e.g., Hofstede’s
masculinity dimension). Second, the dimensional view of culture is only one perspective from which cultural differences can
be analyzed. There are other concepts, such as the social identity perspective (Straub, Loch, Evaristo, Karahanna and Srite,
2002) which may also be viable for this purpose. Third, the concept of cultural differences is very complex und thus difficult
to cover in all its facets. Accordingly, our theoretical model derived from the extant literature is a first step to shed some light
on these issues, and finally, so far, no empirical data was available to evaluate the proposed relationships. We thus
recommend conducting further empirical work. Qualitative data can be used to further refine the propositions proposed in this
paper; a quantitative approach could be used to test the resulting conceptual model.
Heumann et al. Cultural Differences, Control, and IS Offshoring
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Detroit, Michigan August 4th-7th 2011 6
Beyond our theoretical contributions and despite the limitations, this study also offers practical contributions. The analysis of
the literature resulted in a set of propositions that allows organizations to envision the influence of particular cultural value
differences on the selection of different control modes. Thus, the developed propositions may help project managers to find a
suitable control strategy that fits the specific cultural setting and identify problems related to cultural differences earlier than
was possible before. Finally, this study offers some evidence that the development of cultural intelligence may moderate the
impact of cultural differences on control.
REFERENCES
1. Association for Information Systems (AIS) (2010) Senior scholars’ basket of journals,
http://home.aisnet.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=346, current December 10, 2010.
2. Beck, R., Gregory, R. and Prifling, M. (2008) Cultural intelligence and project management interplay in IT offshore
outsourcing projects, ICIS 2008 Proceedings, December 14-17, Paris, France, 1-18.
3. Carmel, E. (1999) Global software teams: Collaborating across borders and time zones, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey.
4. Chen, C. C., Peng, M. W. and Saparito, P. A. (2002) Individualism, collectivism, and opportunism: A cultural
perspective on transaction cost economics, Journal of Management, 28, 4, 567-583.
5. Choudhury, V. and Sabherwal, R. (2003) Portfolios of control in outsourced software development projects, Information
Systems Research, 14, 3, 291-314.
6. Damian, D. E. and Zowghi, D. (2003) An insight into the interplay between culture, conflict and distance in globally
distributed requirements negotiations, Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
January 6-9, Big Island, USA.
7. Dibbern, J., Goles, T., Hirschheim, R. A. and Jayatilaka, B. (2004) Information systems outsourcing: A survey and
analysis of the literature, The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35, 4, 6-102.
8. Dibbern, J., Winkler, J. and Heinzl, A. (2008) Explaining variations in client extra costs between software projects
offshored to india, MIS Quarterly, 32, 2, 333-366.
9. Earley, P. C. and Ang, S. (2003) Cultural intelligence - individual interactions across cultures, Stanford University Press,
Stanford.
10. Earley, P. C. and Mosakowski, E. (2004) Cultural intelligence, Harvard Business Review, 82, 10, 139-146.
11. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1985) Control: Organizational and economic approaches, Management Science, 31, 2, 134-149.
12. Gopal, A. and Gosain, S. (2009) The role of organizational controls and boundary spanning in software development
outsourcing: Implications for project performance, Information Systems Research, 1-23.
13. Gregory, R. W. (2010) Review of the IS offshoring literature: The role of cross-cultural differences and management
practices, Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Information Systems, June 7-9, Pretoria, South Africa, 1-12.
14. Gupta, U. and Raval, V. (1999) Critical success factors for anchoring offshore projects, Information Strategy, 15, 2, 21-
27.
15. Hall, E. T. and Hall, M. R. (1990) Understanding cultural differences, Yarmouth, Maine.
16. Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values, Sage, Newbury Park.
17. Hofstede, G. (1991) Culture and organizations: Software of the mind, McGraw Hill, Cambridge.
18. Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations,
Sage, Newbury Park.
19. Huang, H. and Ocker, R. (2006) Preliminary insights into the in-group/out-group effect in partially distributed teams: An
analysis of participant reflections, Proceedings of SIGMIS-CPR’06, April 13-15, Claremont, California, USA, 264-272.
20. Hui, C. H. and Triandis, H. C. (1986) Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural research, Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 17, 222-248.
21. Jackson, T. (1995) Cross cultural management, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
22. Jaworski, B. J. (1988) Toward a theory of marketing control: Environmental context, control types, and consequences,
The Journal of Marketing, 52, 3, 23-39.
Heumann et al. Cultural Differences, Control, and IS Offshoring
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Detroit, Michigan August 4th-7th 2011 7
23. Keil, M., Tan, B. C. Y., Wei, K. K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V. K. and Wassenaar, A. (2000) A cross-cultural study on
escalation of commitment behavior in software projects, MIS Quarterly, 24, 2, 299-325.
24. King, W. R. and Torkzadeh, G. (2008) Information systems offshoring: Research status and issues, MIS Quarterly, 32, 2,
205-225.
25. Kirsch, L. J. (1996) The management of complex tasks in organizations: Controlling the systems development process,
Organization Science, 7, 1, 1-21.
26. Kirsch, L. J. (1997) Portfolios of control modes and IS project management, Information Systems Research, 8, 3, 215-
239.
27. Kirsch, L. J. (2004) Deploying common systems globally: The dynamics of control, Information Systems Research, 15,
4, 374-395.
28. Kok-Yee, N. and Earley, C. P. (2006) Culture+intelligence: Old constructs, new frontiers, Group Organization
Management, 31, 1, 4-19.
29. Krishna, S., Sahay, S. and Walsham, G. (2004) Managing cross-cultural issues in global software outsourcing,
Communications of the ACM, 47, 4, 62-66.
30. Leidner, D. E. and Kayworth, T. (2006) Review: A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory
of information technology culture conflict, MIS Quarterly, 30, 2, 357-399.
31. Manz, C. C., Mossholder, K. W. and Luthans, F. (1987) An integrated perspective of self-control in organizations,
Administration and Society, 19, 1, 3-24.
32. Murdock, G. (1940) The cross-cultural survey, American Sociological Review, 5, 3, 361-370.
33. Nicholson, B. and Sahay, S. (2001) Some political and cultural issues in the globalisation of software development: Case
experience from Britain and India, Information and Organization, 11, 1, 25-43.
34. Nicholson, B. and Sahay, S. (2004) Embedded knowledge and offshore software development, Information and
Organization, 14, 4, 329-365.
35. Ouchi, W. G. (1979) A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms, Management
Science, 25, 2, 833-848.
36. Prifling, M., Gregory, R. and Beck, R. (2008) Project management techniques for managing cross-cultural differences in
IT offshore outsourcing, Proceedings of the Fourteenth American Conference on Information Systems, August 14-17,
Toronto, Canada, 1-9.
37. Raghuram, S. (2006) Individual effectiveness in outsourcing, Human Resource Management, 25, 2, 127-133.
38. Rao, M. T., Poole, W., Raven, P. V. and Lockwood, D. L. (2006) Trends, implications, and responses to global IT
sourcing: A field study, Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 9, 3, 5-23.
39. Roberts, C. and Wasti, S. A. (2002) Organizational individualism and collectivism: Theoretical development and an
empirical test of a measure, Journal of Management, 28, 4, 544-566.
40. Rustagi, S., King, W. R. and Kirsch, L. J. (2008) Predictors of formal control usage in IT outsourcing partnerships,
Information Systems Research, 19, 2, 126-143.
41. Sabherwal, R. (1999) The role of trust in outsourced IS development projects, Communications of the ACM, 42, 2, 80-
86.
42. Sabherwal, R. and Choudhury, V. (2006) Governance of remotely outsourced software development: A comparison of
client and vendor perspectives, in Rudy Hirschheim, Armin Heinzl and Jens Dibbern (Eds.) Information systems
outsourcing: Enduring themes, new perspectives, and global challenges, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 187-222.
43. Schein, E. H. (1985) Organizational culture and leadership, Sossey-Bass, San Francisco.
44. Srite, M. and Karahanna, E. (2006) The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance, MIS
Quarterly, 30, 3, 679-704.
45. Straub, D., Loch, K., Evaristo, R., Karahanna, E. and Srite, M. (2002) Towards a theory-based measurement of culture,
Journal of Global Information Management, 10, 1, 13-23.
46. Tiwana, A. (2010) Systems development ambidexterity: Explaining the complementary and substitutive roles of formal
and informal controls, Journal of Management Information Systems, 27, 2, 87-126.
Heumann et al. Cultural Differences, Control, and IS Offshoring
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Detroit, Michigan August 4th-7th 2011 8
47. Tiwana, A., and Keil, M. (2010) Control in internal and outsourced software projects, Journal of Management
Information Systems, 26, 3, 9-44.
48. Tractinsky, N., Jarvenpaa S. L. (1995) Information systems design decisions in a global versus domestic context, MIS
Quarterly, 19, 4, 507-534.
49. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M. and Lucca, N. (1988) Individualism and collectivism: Cross-
cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 2, 323-338.
50. Trompenaars, F. (1994) Riding the waves of culture, Irwin, New York.
51. Vlaar, P. W. L., van Fenema, P. C. and Tiwari, V. (2008) Cocreating understanding and value in distributed work: How
members of onsite and offshore vendor teams give, make, demand, and break sense, MIS Quarterly, 32, 2, 227-255.
52. Webster, J. and Watson, R. T. (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review, MIS
Quarterly, 26, 2, xiii-xxiii.
53. Winkler, J. K., Dibbern, J. and Heinzl, A. (2008) The impact of cultural differences in offshore outsourcing—case study
results from German–Indian application development projects, Information Systems Frontier, 10, 2, 243-258.
View publication statsView publication stats
