Towards a better understanding of group forking dynamics in virtual contexts

ABSTRACT

"Group Fork" is defined as more than two group members leave their parent organization and start a new group. While group fork is a common social phenomenon in any type of group, it is still understudied in virtual contexts. Drawing upon the literature from three fields, religious research, social psychology and organization studies, this study attempts to bridge this gap by answering two questions, "what causes group fork?" and how is individual dissatisfaction transformed into group-level dissatisfaction in virtual contexts, thus leading to the eventual fork? Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects will be used as examples of self-organizing virtual work, as they provide a good context to observe the whole process of how group interactions are intertwined toward to the eventual fork. A multi-stage research strategy is conducted in this study and preliminary findings will be reported.

REFERENCES

• 1: Sani, F. and Todman, J. 2002. Should We Stay or Should We Go? A Social Psychological Model of Schisms in Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 28, 1647--1655.
• 2: Dyck, B. and Starke, F. A. 1999. The Formation of Breakaway Organizations: Observations and a Process Model. Administrative Science Quarterly. 44, 4, 792--822.
• 3: Sani, F. and Reicher, S. 2000. Contested identities and schisms in groups: Opposing the ordination of women as priests in the Church of England. British Journal of Social Psychology. 39, 95--112.
• 4: Bartunek, J. M., Huang, Z., and Walsh, I.J. 2008. The development of a process model of collective turnover. Human Relations. 61, 5, 5--38.
• 5: Watson-Manheim, M. B., Chudoba, K. M., and Crowston, K. 2002. Discontinuities and Continuities: a new way to understand virtual work. Information, Technology & People. 15, 3, 191--209.
• 6: Postmes, T., Spears, R., and Lea, M. 2000. The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research. 26, 3, 341 -- 371.
• 7: Lea, M., Spears, R. and de Groot, D. 2001. Knowing Me, Knowing You: Anonymity Effects on Social Identity Processes within Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 27, 5, 526--537.
• 8: Anne Powell , Gabriele Piccoli , Blake Ives, Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research, ACM SIGMIS Database, v.35 n.1, p.6-36, Winter 2004 [doi>10.1145/968464.968467]
• 9: Peter Kollock , Mark Smith, Communities in Cyberspace, Routledge, New York, NY, 1998
• 10: Sani, F. 2008. Schism in Groups: A Social Psychological Account. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2, 2, 718--732.
• 11: Wikipedia (2008). "Fork (software development)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork(softwaredevelopment)
• 12: Hart, C. M. and Vugt M. V. 2006. From Fault Line to Group Fission: Understanding Membership Changes in Small Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 392--404.
• 13: Mamiya, L. H. 1982. From Black Muslim to Bilalian: The Evolution of a Movement. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 21, 2, 138--152.
• 14: Sutton, J. R. and Chaves, M. 2004. Explaining Schism in American Protestant Denominations, 1890-1990. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 43, 2, 171--190
• 15: Liebman, R. C., Sutton, J. R., and Wuthnow, R. 1988. Exploring the Social Sources of Denominationalism: Schisms in American Protestant Denominations, 1890-1980. American Sociological Review. 53, 3, 343--352.
• 16: Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Pres.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.0 GENERAL

General Terms:
Management

Keywords:
floss, group fork, open source, schism, turnover