<* Wo* tevtew 1 | l |

Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative DataAnalysis, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ortner, S. 1994 (1984). "Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties."In Culture/Power/History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory.N. B. Dirks, G. Ely and S. B. Ortner, eds., pp. 372-411. Princeton:Princeton University Press.

Pelto, P. J., and G. H. Pelto. 1978. Anthropological Research: TheStructure of Inquiry, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Rohlen, T. P. 1974. For Harmony and Strength: Japanese White-Collar Organization in Anthropological Perspective. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Sahlins, M. 1981. Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities:Structure in the Early History of the Sandwich Islands Kingdom. AnnArbor. University of Michigan Press.

Schneider, S. C. and A. DeMeyer. 1991. "Interpreting and Re-sponding to Strategic Issues: The Impact of National Culture."Strategic Management Journal 12:307-320.

Schwartzman, H. B. 1993. Ethnography in Organizations, 27.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Serrie, H., ed. 1984. Anthropology and International Business:Studies in Third World Societies, 28. Williamsburg, VA: College ofWilliam and Mary.

Spradley, J. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. Orlando: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.

. 1980. Participant Observation. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehartand Winston.

Strauss, A. and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Stull, D. D. and J. J. Schensul, eds. 1987. Collaborative Researchand Social Change: Applied Anthropology in Action. Boulder, CO.Westview Press.

Weick, K. E., and P. W. Van Orden. 1990. "Organizing on aGlobal Scale." Human Resource Management 29(1):49-61.

Whyte, W. F., ed. 1991. Participatory Action Research. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Multi-Ethnic Project Team Relationshipsin a High-Tech Organizational CultureAna Maria Reyes, Aresty Institute of Executive Education

Introduction

For some time, organizational scholars have questioned theparochial nature of U.S. organizational and psychological

theories given an increasingly global economy and ethnicallydiverse work force (Adler 1983, 1997; Adler, Doktor andRedding 1986; Black and Mendenhall 1990; BoyacigillerandAdler 1991; Cox 1990; Cox and Blake 1991; Cox andNkomo 1990; Hofstede 1984; Laurent 1983, 1986). WhileHispanics1 represent the fastest growing segment of the U.S.population,2 research on our growing presence in organiza-tions is sparse (Ferdman and Cortes 1992; Knouse, Rosenfeldand Culbertson 1992). Research on multi-ethnic teams inorganizational contexts can contribute in two areas (Ferdman,1992). First, it can address a growing practical concern fororganizations struggling to manage the dynamics of ethnicdiversity. Secondly, it can generate better theoretical modelsto explain the actual complexity of organizational behavior.

This research (Reyes 1992) began with a theoretical interestin the dynamics of ethnic diversity, or in the inter-relationshipamong social processes, task processes, and cultural frames ofreference3 in organizational contexts. To examine thisrelationship, I needed to locate naturally existing organiza-tional situations in which members of different subcultureshad an opportunity to co-determine the instrumental andinteractional life of a group from start to finish. A field studyofmulti-ethnic(i.e.,Anglo-American/Hispanic-American4)taskforces, or project teams,5 represented such a research situa-tion.

The investigation also required a conceptual and method-ological approach that could capture the reciprocal influencesof task and social processes and cultural frames of referenceover time in particular contexts (Maruyama 1978b, 1985,1992). Viewing organizations as cultural phenomena (Czarni-awska-Joerges 1992) and organizational technologies ascultural practices turned over to machines (Czarniawska-Joerges 1992; joerges 1989) provided one practical way ofbringing a contextual perspective and associated ethnographicmapping tools (Agar 1986; McCracken 1988; Mishler 1986;Spradley 1980) to the study of organizationally-embeddedmulti-ethnic project teams.

Overview of the Study6

The purpose of the study was to explore the relationshipbetween a group and its organizational context. The groupwas a multi-ethnic project team in a large, high-technology,public- sector organization. I adopted Maruyama's reciprocalcausal processes paradigm (1978b, 1980,1982), which positsthat interactional parties at different levels of analysis (e.g.,interpersonal, intergroup) mutually cause one another'sbehavior over time. From this point of departure, researchseeks to define the contextual relationships of interactingsystems and to take into account the contributions of eachparty to the interaction process over time.

Ethnographic research was used to map the actions,practices and perceptions of members which defined theorganizational context and the specific groups under study(Agar 1986; McCracken 1988; Mishler 1986; Spradley 1980).Data collection involved the researcher in a multi-phase

Vo/ume XVttl Numbers 2 * 3

organizational entry, data collection and analysis processdesigned to be responsive to the local situation and to makevisible the cultural knowledge required to participate ineveryday life.

The data for this investigation were collected overapproximately a 30-month period.7 The major part of the datareported here, however, was collected during the first elevenmonths. Within this data collection period, there were threemajor phases. Phase 1 focused on identifying the patterns oforganization within the CC Company (i.e., the pseudonym forthe parent company) that framed relationships within theparticular organizational site selected for detailed study,interactions between the researcher and organizational entrycontacts from different sites within the parent organizationwere used to make visible the patterns of social structure, themembers' habitually enacted social processes (Smith 1985:133-135). These data formed the groundwork for entry intoSite #1 (i.e., the pseudonym for the particular organizationalsite where the study was conducted).

In the second entry stage, I entered Site #1 and particularmulti-ethnic task forces within the organization. Figure 1presents the total number of data strips8 collected throughoutthe study. Strips were sorted by the time period during whichthey were collected (e.g., Site Visit #1) and by focus ofinterest (e.g., Task force TE).

Entry, however, is never final. The entry process beginsagain with every new person, group or organization con-tacted. Through a continual entry process, interactionsbetween the researcher and organizational members madevisible particular aspects of organizational context, of groups,and of relationships among the individual parts and thewhole. The analysis of the entry phase was designed toprovide data on the following questions:

1.0 What organizational structures were identified throughthe interaction of the researcher with members of theorganization in the entry process?

1.1 What group memberships were visible in interactionswith members during the entry process?

1.2 What patterns of contact facilitated efficient fieldentry?

1.3 How was field entry into the organizational sitessupported?

The second major phase of the study involved an in-depth case study of a multi-ethnic task force (i.e., TE was thepseudonym selected for the particular project team in thestudy). The TE task force enabled me to examine the relation-ships among social and task processes and cultural frames ofreference.

Figure 1. Total Data Collected: Site Visits 1-7 & Follow Up

C Context Data - - XY Group Data —— TE Group Data HT Group Data —MM Group Data

Site Visit 1(8/26-9/8)

Site Visit 2(9/14-9/23)

Site Visit 3(9/30-10/6)

Site Visit 4(10/16-10/27)

Site Visit 5(10/30-11/4)

Site Visit 6(11/9-11/17)

Mos. 11-26(FOLLOW UP)

5i!eVisli(26/1-26/2)

Total Data Collected: Listed by Type and Target Group

Context DataXYGroupDtfaTEGtoupDataHT Group Date

MM Group Data

Site Visit 1

20U,4T,SS,9O,A1M2

1U,4OA,6A-11

1OA-1O

1U-1

Site Visit 2

10U,1T,8D,2A-21

0

2U.1A-3

5A-5

Site Visit 3

0

3A-3

0

2A-2

0 2U,1S,6O,20A,16V-45 2U,2O,11A,7V-22

Site Visit 4

6U.1S.1DM

1A-1

0

1A-1

1SU.8S.7D.4A-37

SlteVlsltS Site Visit 6

3U.1A-4 2U4O.3AM

0 0

0 0

0 0

5U,1S.1D,14A,5V-20 1U^S,3O^1AJV-

Mos, 11-26 Site Visit 6

2U-J 4U.3D-7

0 0

0 0

0 0

15 28A-2S 2U.4O.11A-17

Codes: Conducted an Unstructured Interview (U), Shadowed a Person (S), Given a Tour of Area Operations (O),Audlotaped an Interview (A), Videotaped Personnel in a Meeting (V), Collected a Document (D)

31

Anthropology of Work Keview

Figure 2. CC Company, Site #1Abbtmutd Venial ofHigliai Ltvd Orpmuaikml Own Chwt

ExecUrv*OHica

Boun are shaded In indicate tin main ana wheninterview! Bad participant observations occurred-

xChiefOperating

Ott.ce

NOTE- All thk. ni boua «re pmtoaymt and order qfboi

OtherOffices

3r~bJfcd-1-•

*4

Ij «^-

t

••••••—

* - —

t

a

f.irl

CiabttvWbn1

I

- J

aVmr

1

h-

The TE task force fit the original research domain criteriafor a multi-ethnic task force because: (a) it was a temporarywork group created to complete a single project within adeadline, (b) the group met face-to-face in order to completethe project, (c) the group composition was 30% to 60%Hispanic, (d) the group was held collectively responsible forthe product, (e) the development of the product requiredfnterdependentwork, (0 there were nopreformulated routinesfor the development of the product, (g) the group product wasevaluated and used by personnel outside the group.

In addition, its task and relationship outcomes wereevaluated positively by its members and the organization,minimizing the risk of negative member consequences fortheir research participation. It was a single gender group, andall core members were interviewed. The selection of thisgroup, therefore, heightened the possibility of exploring howethnicity interplayed with task and social performance.Particular problems observed in other groups (e.g., theovershadowing of ethnicity by gender-related issues) werethus avoided.

In this phase, core members of the task force were inter-viewed and documents associated with the task force and organ-fzation were analyzed. The following questions were posed:

2.0 How was the organizational context reflected in theactivities and relationships of the members of a multi-ethnic task force?

2.1 What was the background of the task force?

2.2 How was the project life cycle perceived?

2.3 Who were the principle players?

2.4 How were the principle activities and relationships ofthe task force perceived?

2.5 What was the perceived role of ethnicity within thetask force?

The third major data collection phase of the studyexamined organizational context from the perspective of itsmembers. Thirty-three interviews with members from techni-cal and nontechnical functions, the four major organizationaldivisions and from multiple levels of the organizationalhierarchy provided the primary data for this phase. Data forthis part of the study were also collected by shadowingmembers while they conducted their work activities, throughparticipant observation during formal tours of operationalareas, and through the analysis of organization documents. Asin the case study, the research participants were ethnicallybalanced.

Volume XVM, Numbers 2 &3

Data from this phase of the study provided the basis forexamining the organizational context as observed by theresearcher and perceived by those interviewed. These dataprovided a means of comparing member perceptions of whatoccurred in the local task force with member perceptions ofthe larger organizational context. The following questionswere explored in this phase of the study:

3.0 What is the organizational context?

3.1 What was the demographic context in which multi-ethnic task forces were embedded at Site #1 ?

3.2 How was the Site #1 organizational context per-ceived?

3.3 What were the consequences for members of partici-pating in the forms of organization defined as theorganizational context?

3.4 What was the perceived role of ethnicity within theorganizational context?

While the phases above appear separate and discrete, inthe actual practices of daily life in the organization they werehighly interrelated. Therefore, in order to answer the controlquestion of this study, What is the relationship of a multi-ethnic task force to its organizational context?, I used aninteractive-reactive design to link the analyses of each phaseto those of other phases. The approach juxtaposes the dataacross analytic phases in order to provide information thatcould not be derived from individual analyses.

For example, the task force was analyzed as a case of amulti-ethnic group life cycle. Then the themes in the organi-zatipnal context data were analyzed. Once themes wereidentified in the organizational context, the data from the casestudy were re-examined so as to identify the links betweenthe multi-ethnic task force and its organizational context. Inother words, the data from each analysis were used to framesubsequent analyses and re-analyses. In this way, relationshipsbetween organizational entities at different levels of analysiswere explored.

Summary and Discussion of the Findings

In this section, an ethnographic genre will be adopted inorder to paint a picture for the reader of the relationshipbetween the parts and the whole in the study. The responseto the research question that drove the study will be writtenas a realistic tale (Van Maanen 1988). Realistic narrativeshave been defined as cultural stories, or a presentation of theways of life studied in matter-of-fact terms from the members'points of view. Such stories are written in the third personvoice of a dispassionate observer. To the extent possible, thenarrative below was composed using the original words ofresearch participants.

The Team-Context Relationship Nexus: a Realistic Tale

The CC Company: An Overview

The CC Company is a large, high-technology, public-sector organization with operations in a number of states.Some divisions of the organization engage in scientific

research and others in designing, building and/or assemblingtechnical equipment necessary to carry out research. Likemost government organizations, the CC Company is highlybureaucratic and involves the use of private contractors tocarry out many aspects of its work.

Work Force Diversity: Inside the CC Company

As with many science and technology organizations, theentrance of women and minorities into the labor force of theCC Company occurred in the last decade, so members ofunder-represented groups tended to be located in the lowerlevels of the hierarchy and in its newly-created functions.Fueled by predictions of an upcoming science and technologylabor shortage, the CC Company initiated a company-wide,multi-phase, diversity management training program tochange the "monocultural" organizational culture into a more"multicultural" organizational culture over a ten-year period.

Commencement of the first phase of this program,designed to increase awareness among personnel of theupcoming demographic shift in the labor pool, coincidedwith this study. The second phase of the management train ingprogram was designed to identify barriers to the attraction andretention of under-represented groups. The third phase wasdesigned to develop orientation, selection, training programsand assessment devices that would ensure that multiculturaltalent was recruited and developed. Therefore, my investiga-tion of multi-ethnic task forces was viewed as congruent withthe CC Company goals of learning about the dynamics ofdiversity in the organization during the first phase of thetraining program.

Field Entry: Social Structures Enacted

During the initial entry process into three CC Companysites, the patterns of interaction between the researcher andorganizational entry contact personnel revealed severalaspects of organizational social structure. First, personneldistinguished themselves from one another on the basis of anumber of organizational and identity group memberships,including technical and non-technical, age and ethnic groupmemberships. Personnel interpreted ongoing organizationalevents, including the research entry process, in terms of theirown groups. Some were thus able to facilitate entry, andothers had difficulty doing so.

For example, senior-level personnel from technical groupswere most efficient in facilitating research entry. Theyresponded quickly to researcher contacts and explained howto overcome entry barriers. Senior technical personnel moreeasily conceptualized the research within the general domainof project work carried out by the organization and facilitatedinitiation of the new project. They simply viewed the researchendeavor as another technical problem to be solved. Thus, intheir interactions with the researcher, they expressed thetechnical view of work organization as a set of technicalprojects.

In contrast, personnel from groups with less power in thehierarchy, such as non-technical and junior-level technicalpersonnel, found it difficult to facilitate the research study.

Volume XVHKNumbers 33

Their difficulties were related to the nature of membership inthe organizational context. They were members of supportgroups, not members of groups who typically initiatedtechnical projects as part of their work. As such, they hadneither the cultural knowledge nor the positional power toinitiate project work effectively within the organization.Consequently, they more often focused on explaining barriersto research entry than on helping the researcher to overcomethose barriers. Within the CC Company patterns of socialorganization, then, personnel outside of the technical organi-zational structure had difficulty initiating new project work.

The pattern of referral used by both technical and non-technical personnel9 also reflected informal contact patternsin the organization. Personal connections among memberswere built on membership in identity groups based on age,ethnicity, gender, technical and non-technical status. Thegroups could be sources of support or hindrance for membersas they pursued their task-related goals. Ethnic connectionswere not particularly visible to members as a whole. Rather,the members of informal ethnic networks exerted theirinfluence to support the accomplishment of daily work in theorganization and in the patterns of member referral andassistance with the researcher's project. The color blindnessof the CC Company organizational culture shown during theresearch entry period foreshadowed this phenomena in Site#1 organization.

The Site #1 Organizational Context: Patterned Perspectives

Site #1 is located in the Southeastern United States.Organizational operations there are directed towards assem-bling research equipment and transporting it to researchlocations. It is a massive organization in terms of acreage,facilities, personnel, equipment, and project number, size andscope. In the eyes of its members, Site #1 organization isperceived as a set of "worlds."

The Organizational Entity: Physical andFunctional Representations

The cultural theme—the organization is an entity,comprised of a set of worlds with a complex functional andphysical geography—provided members with a coherentframework for viewing themselves as parts of the whole, forguiding their movement through the organization to accom-plish project work, and for guiding the endless stream ofcustomers, research collaborators, technical teams, andvisitors through the site in a coherent way.

Entering different worlds requires maps for the journey,and Site #1 maps came in many forms. Figure 2,10 is a Site #1organizational chart.

There were guides to the operations and unique missionsof various divisions, guides to the functional specialties andimportant personnel within those divisions, guides to projectactivities and facility layouts, and guides to facility locationsby land, sea and air.

The maps individual members used to guide themselvesand others through the technical world of the organization

highlighted its functions, positions, activity schedules andtechnical procedures. While the maps made the massive scaleof project coordination possible for individual humans, likeall models for viewing reality they clarified some phenomenaand distorted others. The daily use of Site #1 representationsof the whole organization and its various parts focusedattention on the technical domain and blurred the collectivevision of the human element in the organization.

Language describing human relationships at Site #1 drewon physical objects and the experiences of daily life. Themetaphors used for human relationships were drawn fromhardware systems, technical processes and project logistics.Hardware interface systems were used as models for humancommunication processes, and individual project manpowerwas modeled on their interchangeable system parts. Organiza-tions were anthropomorphized as young and old, and amatrix was used as a referent for the way in which humanmovement took place in the organizational entity.

The Organization of Work: The TemporalTemplates for Project Life Cycles

As a part of the larger CC Company, Site #1 coordinatesmassive projects with all of the other CC Company organiza-tions and with external organizations, including privatecontractors. Project coordination activities often proceed at afrenetic pace, so much so that when contrasted with thetempo of life in the region where it was located, moving fromorganizational life to local culture was like entering a "timewarp." Interactions with locals seemed to proceed in slowmotion.

The cultural theme—organizational work is a set ofprojects moving through time—provided members with acoherent framework for understanding the multiplicity ofendeavors in which the organization was engaged. Within theframework, there were many kinds of projects: major projects;their sub-projects; projects supporting these; and technology,facility, hardware and operations improvement projects.Project types varied in size and duration from an individual'safternoon of work to an endeavor involving hundreds ofpeople for many years. Project work, from this perspective,was conducted in contexts of high or low visibility and inplanning or operational time.

Each Major Organizational Project (a pseudonym for theirterm) was conceptualized as having several levels of hierar-chically organized sub-projects (i.e., pseudonym). In order torepresent the diversity of enterprises subsumed under thedomain of projects, members used multi-level schedules asthe template for both projects and constituent activities.Figure 3 illustrates the organizational framework for under-standing hierarchically embedded projects within projects.11

Project life cycles were represented in linear phases,comprised of alternating sequences of individual workactivities and project review meetings. In this framework,project progress was marked by milestones located on anabstract temporal scale of 0% to 100% completion. Projectactivities in the model were then represented as sequences of

Votum Wit, Numbers 2 & 3

Anthropology of Work Review

Figure 3. Levels of Project Schedules Abbreviated sample sections of all levels

d [II

«*./•

ajor injects Schedule JcrmBarft

[ECU

Project Flow Schedule Jar tack —rinrraTiirmi/ frrrfn-l

CD©

J 1 M

1

A

1

M

• t >•;

1 1r

J

• • • ' • : •

J

w

A s

Wt

u

revn

N U J

• • • „,,,,,

M

ajor rojec aoagemeD c e u ng r a c e

I. Project Milestone Schtduk far each or^amiMtitmrni jrryrrr

R L

H I A 1n

uUli

s

Liili1 1

V\'\

ni

inU

F

II

'K f

i . l

A

V////A

M

AS

.'

D

II. Major Project Processing Schtdu\t Jar each mb-project

Mik*one<IAI> .

TTIII III11IJIIIL11

in n i11.in

M i l l. I : . 1 1 ' i i i 1 1 J r ' i i i r 1 1 i f l I 1 j 1 J l : I l I I I I

Consolidated Control Schedule far tack mb-proftct

Tuts Mar 9 Wed Ma I u. Mar 11

Sub-ptvjccl Mnc. tMMk, r«Spq«alM«p<finL M|«ipa<flL n|«vi1 MfVtCCS.

•lop t«« , W fia ntji*

Sub-prujccl UB«, Usk, rrsponjiblcptnon, (qutpmcal, wpport icmccs,sunystop time, IcDftb of job

CODE; FV=FiK*J\e«r CY=C«l««d«rY*«r iknolcs oq|aBU«tional pn>j«<1 denotes suh-pntjertAD K-heduk title* an p

time blocks, each with particular hardware, facility andmanpower utilization requirements.

Within this framework of work, projects were generatedand extended through the use of a problem-solving modelthat moved through cycles of problem identification, casejustification and project selling phases. Major projects wereinitiated by the larger CC Company and its clients andcollaborators. Smaller projects were most easily initiated bysenior technical personnel, although some improvementprojects were generated by those working in particularproblem areas. For each project, team composition wasdefined by a specific configuration of functions necessary tocarry out its activities. Following the definition of the func-tional configuration, individuals representing each requiredfunction were then matrixed to a project team.

Like maps of the organization, daily use of Site #1representations of project life cycles focused attention onsome phenomena and obscured others. Schedules highlight-ing the abstract temporal conceptualization ot work obscured

the human elements involved in creating and adapting taskprocesses to emergent technical and human needs.

Thus, in Site #1 technical organization, task processesovershadowed social processes. Technology was perceived todrive human interactions in this organizational context,framing the technical processes as "figure" and humanprocesses as "ground " This model for a human-technologyrelationship tended to constrain perception of individualparticularities and substantive nontemporal concerns in boththe technical and social realms of the organization. Thesomewhat singular technical focus was reflected in rganiza-tional training and socialization practices and in the relativelack of attention to individual career development needsoutside the technical realm.

Technical work was revered at Site #1 and universallydescribed by technical personnel as consuming, fascinatingand thrilling. Yet, the technical project focus defining workorientations at Site #1 led to a general preoccupation withtemporal problems, sometimes at the expense of moresubstantive concerns. Individuals felt constantly pressed fortime and unable to reflect on technical and human processesand tensions between work and family needs. Women feltthis most keenly, but men also expressed it. I r manyindividuals, reverence for technical innovation, together withan affinity for the kinds of work done at Site #1 and thebonds created among the people who worked together,mediated the relative inattention to human concerns that theyexpressed.

Human Relationships: The Situational Visibilityof Ethnicity in a Color Blind Culture

Within an organizational context and project structurethat stressed functional representation and abstract temporalcomparability across projects, ethnic differences weresubsumed under individual differences. Lacking conceptualmodels for integrating individual particularity into technicalprocesses, ethnic differences beyond those language differ-ences that interfered with technical processes, were notvisible to members. Inter-ethnic processes, then were notsituation blind. In other words, when tasks were in theforeground of attention and going smoothly, ethnicity was notsalient to members. However in the times and E-pacesbetween those task-relevant moment ethnicity did play drole in relationship patterns within the organizational context.

Organizational policies at Site #1 supported a "colorblind" (Schofield 1986) or assimilation model of ethnicintegration. In this framework, organizational culture is takenas a given, and ethnically diverse individual - are expected tadapt themselves in order to fit in. Thus, the relationship ofAnglo and Hispanic groups within the organizational contextwas primarily a relationship of one-way adaptation.

Site #1 had the highest percentage of Hispanics in thetechnical work force of all the CC Company sites. Theirpresence was viewed as part of the ethnic diversificationprocess that had started a decade before and had picked up

Volume XVtll, Numbers 2 * 3

momentum in the last couple of years. Hispanics werelocated in the lower echelons of the technical hierarchy atSite #1 . Those who had been there long enough to bepromoted into the lowest management level were in anorganization with a depressed number of middle-managementpositions.

Further, although Hispanic-Americans were betterrepresented than other minority groups in the relativelyhigher-status "technical" work force of the organization, themajority had been recruited from a single university andbelonged to one ethnic subgroup and one subtype of theengineering disciplines. The engineering subtype furtherinfluenced the possible career paths available for the sub-group within the disciplinary hierarchy of the engineeringworld.

Ethnicity was not salient for members of the technicalcore. The influences exerted by members of ethnic networksto support the accomplishment of daily work, the similaritiesbetween inter-ethnic and international relationship patternsand the potential of cultural differences to inform blind spotsin typical modes of social organization at Site #1 were largelymissed in this organizational context. Since technical andnon-technical functions were separated in everyday life, non-technical personnel's knowledge of patterns of social organi-zation—including operation of intra- and inter-ethnic pro-cesses—was largely undeveloped.

When information about inter-ethnic relationships wasexplicitly sought for this study, members distinguishedinternational clients and project collaborators from under-represented minority groups at Site #1. Within the Americanwork force, members of ethnic minority groups tended to bedefined as under-represented individuals in the organization.The individuals who were counted as Hispanic representeda wide range of national backgrounds, generations in theUnited States, levels of acculturation, levels of Englishfluency, strength of affiliation with their culture of origin, andsense of ethnic community or isolation in the Site #1 area.

Positive social rapport existed between Hispanics andAnglo-Americans in this organizational context, suggesting acompatible interactional style. In other words, regionally-based Anglo-American cultural practices of sociability andpoliteness overlapped with Hispanic cultural practices ofinterpersonal social grace. Similar styles seemed to makecultural interface between the two groups much easier. But interms of oral communication, there were significant differ-ences in reception and expression. Hence, "unacculturated"Hispanics had trouble making sense of regional Anglo Englishdialects, and Anglos had trouble making sense of Hispanicforms of English dialects.

For those Hispanics least familiar with U.S. culture,problems of ethnic adaptation were understood as individualadaptation. Adaptation issues included acculturation prob-lems, the need to acquire various "languages" simultaneously(i.e., American English, regional English dialect, Site #1specific technical language12) the need to manage self-esteem

issues associated with ethnic differentiation in this context,and hidden restraints on upward mobility of those who couldnot blend into "mainstream culture" because of linguistic orracial differences.

Consistent with the way in which other identity groupsoperated in the organization, individuals who were mostfamiliar with ethnic issues were Hispanic personnel and non-technical personnel. They developed programs to supporttheir integration into the work force. Within the organiza-tional context, such problems were considered largelyseparate from work. The predominantly expressed view wasthat day-to-day operations in the organization were indepen-dent of ethnic and cultural influences.

The TE Task Force Background in Organizational Context

Within the range of project teams at Site #1, the TE taskforce—with representation from 5 Site #1 Divisions, 8 Site #1Branches, a CC Company Site in another state and twoprivate contractor organizations—was considered very small,both in size and in the amount of time dedicated to its work.In comparison to other kinds of project teams at Site #1,members spent less time on this work, negotiated less overcontrol of the project outcome, and did less reporting tomanagement.

Contrary to the initial research definition of task forces, asgroups having to create new social structures in order toperform their task, in Site #1 organization there were existingrules for the creation of temporary social structures labeledprojects. On the TE team, membership was referred to infunctional terms. Team composition was conceptually dividedinto a core and a peripheral membership that routinely variedover the life cycle of the group. Those individuals whosefunctions required collaboration on some part of the work,remembered one another as members of the group. Incontrast, members tended to forget those members withwhom they had not worked directly.

Figure 4 illustrates the "core group" and the membersperipheral to the accomplishment of the actual work mostconsistently referred to as such by the members.13

This perceptual differentiation of membership by functionwas also visible in the criteria used by members of eachfunctional group to evaluate their work product beyond the"organizational requirements" completion criteria used by allof the groups. The customer group (i.e., who paid for thefacility improvement study), used the organizational require-ments criteria, the utilitarian criteria of whether the studygenerated an implementation phase, and the lack of need forproject problems analysis in the end. The service providermonitor group (i.e., who supervised the contractor whoconducted the facility improvement study) used the criterionof customer satisfaction to evaluate the product, and theservice provider contract group member (i.e., the contractorwho conducted the study) used the criteria of project goaland specification clarity to evaluate the product.

Wwm tk 3

ntbropoiogy of Work Review

Rgur«4. TE Tiskforce: Team ConpostUon

M* talon 2 I

Coin: •<

The TE Project Life Cycle in Context

The design of the project life cycle for the TE team wasderived from the organizational template for project organiza-tion and was consistent across all participants. Figure 5 showsthe TE Task force Project Lifecycle as abstracted from theinterviewees' descriptions of their work.

The project schedule was developed fropn the analysis ofthe sequence and duration of projected activities and wasrepresented as a time line on which project milestones werelocated on a scale of 0% to 100% comp et on. Each phase

was further segmented by team members into smaller sets ofalternating sequences of individual work activities and designreview meetings, devised to assess project progress. The TEproject life cycle studied was the initial phase of a mu t -phase project.

The perceptual effects of the organizational template forproject work were visible in this case. In this model, projectactivities were represented in abstract and measurable unitsof linear time. These units were then summed up and used asindicators of project progress and completion. By focusing onthe abstract, comparable features of projects, the projectstructure template obscured the human elements involved.Thus, while the TE team was only one of each member's totalprojects, and a small one at that, the details were at timesconfused with those of other projects members were workingon. In instances when members did not remember details,they tended to draw on the organizational project frameworkto fill in forgotten information, such as team composition ofthe project.

The customer division Branch head's TE project justifica-tion activ ties made the Site #1 model for project develop-ment visible (i.e., define technical problem, de lop casejustification and sell case to management; The rapacity tosell ideas partially determines the ability to initiate andcontinue projects. When the technical probl m-solvingframework was imposed on human interactions, however, thevision of how good team relationships were created andmaintained were partially obscured. Although the TE team-

Figure 5 The TE Task Force Project Lifecycle; Overview

PROJECT LIFECYCLE

Problem Identlfl- Study Ptwn: (Included In Reward) Study) Implementation Phase(Excluded from Study.^.

'rinciplePwtt:

Volume XVM, Nvml>ers 2 « 3

Antbropohgy

work was reported to be excellent and enjoyable by most ofthe members, the two senior team members were not able toexplain how the good relationships were created and main-tained. The relationship management strategies of the teamwere explained by the Hispanic members and the contractor.

On the TE Team, the dual matrix authority structure inthe functional and technical realms of the organizationbecame visible in the perceived relationships among teammembers. Functional authority was differentiated fromtechnical authority on the team. While team members grantedthe head of the customer division subgroup the authority tointeract outside the officially designated "interface" structureof the team, they did not grant him authority to control thetechnical aspects of their work outside his function. In thefacility design function, the lead engineer's authority officiallysuperseded the authority of the functional head of thecustomer group in the team relationship patterns.

Similarly, the inter-organizational monitoring character ofSite #1 interfaces with contractors was made visible in therelationship perceptions of TE team members. This wasdefined as a professional or business relationship in whichthe work produced was framed in terms of progress supervi-sion and budgetary control. Given that this theme was absentin the descriptions of the organizational context, and despitethe constant presence of and discussions about contractors, itappears that contractors were considered outside the memberdefinition of the organization as entity.

The TE Team-Context Relationship:Improvisation in Task and Social Processes

During the planning phase, when the project wasconducted with low visibility, there was less time pressureand more flexibility to deviate from standard operating teamprocedures. Variations and improvisations in the official socialstructures and project schedules were generated by teammembers in order to meet perceived emergent technicalneeds.

Variations in typical funding patterns allowed for varia-tions in the social organization of authority on the team.Perceived technical needs generated variations in the originaldesign for the temporal patterning of scheduling milestones.Individual educational goals generated an informal consulta-tion Interface to adapt product fit to the larger organizationalcontext. Personal bonds that overlapped with ethnicitygenerated variations on the social support structures availablefor the project. These included voluntary mentoring, technicalconsultation efforts, and project planning outside teamboundaries. The ability to take advantage of contextualflexibility and generate variations on official social structureswas possible because team members knew the ropes.

The multi-ethnic task force studied revealed an improvisa-tional relationship with project structures and models of inter-ethnic interaction described above. Thus, while the model forthe project life cycle, group composition, and views of therelationship of ethnicity and teamwork were drawn from theorganizational context, variations in official social structures

and project schedules were generated by team members inorder to meet perceived emergent technical and humanneeds. Variations were permitted, on the one hand, by lowproject visibility and its performance during planning timeversus operational time, and on the other hand, by seniorteam members' knowledge of project budgeting and manage-ment structures in the organization.

TE Team Ethnicity in Context:Cultural Frameworks Made Visible

Ethnicity was not salient to TE team members, althoughwhen asked about inter-ethnic relationships at work, they allviewed inter-ethnic relationships to be positive at Site #1. Allteam members fused ethnic similarity with ethnic equality intheir perceptions and framed the discussion of inter-ethnicrelationships at Site #1 in prejudicial terms.

Despite this, the views of ethnic processes expressed byAnglo-American and Hispanic-American team members weredifferent. The Anglo subgroup framed ethnicity in inter-ethnicterms (i.e., perceived their own ethnicity as virtually non-existent but did attribute an ethnic group identity to Hispan-ics), viewed ethnic differences as a source of possible workproblems, and perceived ethnicity to be irrelevant to TE teamwork. Anglo-Americans, as a group, also evaluated teamworkin terms of individuals performing their individual jobs.Hispanic-Americans evaluated teamwork in terms of commu-nicative and collaborative processes and feelings of belongingand support.

There were also differences between the two subgroups'views of the role of ethnicity in the development of personalrelationships and in the definition of personal identity. TheAnglo-Americans considered ethnicity unimportant andsomehow separate from the individual. In contrast, collec-tively, the Hispanics treated ethnicity as a more central aspectof individual identity by differentiating more and less Angli-cized Hispanics, identifying with their own ethnic traditionsand values, noticing the facilitative effects of common ethnicgroup membership on the development of personal relation-ships, and incorporating learning about the traditions ofunfamiliar ethnic groups into their relationships with individu-als from those groups. The Hispanic subgroup perceivedethnicity to be intertwined with age, university affiliations andfunctional areas within Site #1 .

Social Skills: The Invisible HumanElements of Technical Competence

The TE group illustrated the kinds of social skills requiredfor good project work at Site #1, although individual socialcompetencies were somewhat invisible to the group. Thecontractor's effective meeting strategy for collaborativelyintegrating multiple group understandings of technicalrequirements, as well as his management of the dual authoritydemands of the team, were missing from member descriptionsof the inter-organizational relationship. Similarly, the relation-ships of trust that operated to facilitate the work among thesenior Anglo-American members of the team were notmentioned by those three team members.

Vatuim XWt, Numbers 2 & 3

While Fudo (pseudonym for the Anglo-American projectbudget branch manager in the customer division) participatedin both the creation of the project and the technical work ofthe team, he was viewed by others as peripheral to the corework and was related to in functional terms, as a seniormember in a project management capacity. Mario's (pseud-onym for the Hispanic-American technical specificationbranch engineer from the customer division) smooth coordi-nation of the multifaceted intergroup interactions during theproject and DF's (pseudonym for the Hispanic-Americanproject team leader from the design engineering division)management of the complex authority structure of the teamwere also not mentioned. In the cases where personalrelationships on the team were spontaneously mentioned,they were mentioned by the Hispanic team members.

Implications of the Findings forTheory, Research and Practice

From the integrated version of the findings outlinedabove, what becomes evident is that this study informstheory, research and practice in three areas. In the sectionsbelow, I will discuss the findings that extend our understand-ing of (1) the relationship of project teams and their organiza-tional contexts, (2) the interdependence of social and taskprocesses in organizations, and (3) the situationally-basednature of ethnic processes in organizations.

Findings That Extend Our Understanding of the Relation-ships of Project Teams and Their Organizational Contexts

The impetus for this study was a discovery duringfieldwork that task forces, or project teams at Site #1 werepartly run as routine groups. Task forces were defined in theliterature as groups that had to create innovative task andsocial participation structures in order to produce theirproducts (Gersick 1988). What became evident throughcontact with this matrix organization was that organizationalframeworks for project organization largely guided task forcedesign and operation.

The finding would seem to be common sense. Yet, in theresearch literature, there were no studies and little informa-tion about the relationship of project teams and organiza-tional contexts. Tracing such relationships in this studyrevealed that members did not simply develop innovative taskand social participation structures. Rather, team membersgenerated improvisations in the existing organizationallydefined structures for project work by taking advantage ofperceived environmental flexibility (i.e., context of lowvisibility, planning time, and existing personal relationships).

Perceived dimensions of environmental flexibility maybeparticular manifestations of "cross-cutting themes" (i.e.,"rhythm and tempo" and "authority") that have been noted topervade group work (Hackman 1990). For example, thecontext of low visibility actually referred to a form of author-ity relationship between the team and its management, andplanning time implied a slower work tempo than was utilizedduring production periods of work.

The finding has several implications for understandinggroups in organizational contexts. First, while the initial teamdesign was derived from the organizational framework forcreating project teams, the actual developmental path of thegroup was partly created through member interactions withone another and with other groups in the environment. Inother words, group development was reciprocally influencedby members and nonmembers through their interactions overtime.

Both membership on the team and project activities wererepeatedly partially redefined over the course of the projectlife cycle in team member interactions with one another, andwith the perceived emerging demands and opportunitiesprovided by the organizational context. This form of groupdevelopment is most consistent with embedded intergrouptheory: intergroup relationships must be analyzed in thecontext of the other social system relationships in which theyare embedded. The notion that group processes are a functionof both member and nonmember perceptions and expecta-tions have been incorporated into the definition of a group inthis theory.

The developmental path of the group as perceived bymembers did not support Gersick's (1988) punctuatedequilibrium paradigm for group development. That teammembers generated improvisations in the organizationallydefined structures for project work provides evidence thatstudying the social forms and contexts of groups can lead tonew kinds of information about groups in organizations(Schwartzman 1986). Future research might explore how suchinteractions (e.g., selling management on project ideas,adapting to routine changes in membership configurations, orinternally generating changes in project schedules andbudgets) generate more or less effective social and taskstrategies within project teams over time in particular con-texts.

The finding also implies that the ability to establishinterpersonal rapport quickly and the ability to communicateeffectively with strangers is vital to the effective functioningof temporary teams. The literature on cross-cultural communi-cation would suggest that effective multi-ethnic project teamsrequire more skilled personnel, given the extra demandsplaced on human communication processes (Erickson 1985;Gumperz, 1982; Jupp, Roberts and Cook-Gumperz 1987;McGoldrick, Giordano and Pearce 1996; Tannen 1984) andrapport building (Erickson and Shultz 1982) when the partiesin interaction are from different ethnic and cultural back-grounds.

Weick and Van Orden (1991) frame the issue in terms of"equivocality problems" (i.e., problem of sense-making andinterpretation inherent in informational environments inwhich multiple inputs are ill-structured, ambiguous andconflicting). They purport that confusions are created by"interactive complexity" in various types of organizations(e.g., global, chemical production and aerospace systems). Forsuch situations, they suggest system remedies that increase

Votime XVtK Z * $

<rf Work Itomw

system sense-making and interpretation. Examples includeteaching team members how to access the internal diversityof member perspectives on problem recognition and defini-tion, and learning how to communicate in ways that clarifyambiguities, synthesize different frames of reference andgenerate new collective understandings in a timely manner.

From this perspective the core problem of project teamwork is learning to recognize, respect and trust the unique,conflicting individual perspectives of team members andlearning to manage the tendencies of groups to press foragreement and conformity in order to reduce complexity.Cross-cultural communication, sense-making, negotiation andoverload management training, then, might especially benefitorganizations in which project teams comprise the predomi-nant mode of carrying out work, when they are experiencingdemographic diversification.

As the term improvisation suggests, members of the groupin this study had to know the organizational rules of projectoperation, and had to collaborate with one another and withnonmembers in order to be able to generate product enhanc-ing variations in team task and social processes. The findingparadoxically implies that interpersonal familiarity amongteam members and familiarity with organizational routinescan play a major role in the development of innovative teamprocesses and products. For example, familiarity may facilitatesocial influence among team members and thus generategreater openness to new ideas. Similarly, knowledge aboutorganizational routines may facilitate interactions with outsidegroups and therefore lead to new team member knowledgeabout ways to access organizational resources.

In the case of multi-ethnic project teams, the potential togenerate greater creativity improved problem-solving andorganizational flexibility through diverse perspectives (Coxand Blake 1991; McLeod 1992) may be tempered by rela-tively less interpersonal and organizational familiarity on thepart of "newer" and "more junior" minority group members.Future studies of the interplay between interpersonal andorganizational familiarity in teamwork may illuminate howteam creativity and effective project planning processes areaffected. In the meantime, the paradox suggests that organiza-tional efforts to ensure that ethnic minority members of theorganization learn the informal ropes and develop informalrelationships within the organization may enhance innovationin project team processes and products.

Findings That Extend Our Understanding of the Interdepen-dence of Social and Technical Processes in Organizations.

Technology was perceived to drive human interactions atSite #1 , such that personnel framed technical processes asfigure and human processes as ground. Thus, organizationaltemplates for the human-technology relationship tended tofocus member attention on temporally categorized projectactivities and obscure member vision of the social practicesgenerated to conduct those activities.

For example, the project scheduling technology in theorganization rendered hardware, facility and manpowerutilization requirements "equivalent" for scheduling purposes.

In other words, the same process was used to assess hard-ware, facility and manpower requirements for projects. Thesocial implications of the use of project scheduling technol-ogy were never questioned. The finding suggests that organi-zational frameworks for human-technology relationships canprofoundly shape members' perceptions of their environ-ments.

Two commentaries regarding the dearth of research onthis topic (Geertz 1983: 147-163; Joerges 1989) stimulated asearch for related studies. The search produced no experi-mental research and two ethnographies (Kunda 1992;Traweek 1988) that addressed how membership in particulartechnical communities and long-term participation in particu-lar kinds of scientific or technological work shapes culturalframeworks. My findings converged with Traweek's (1988) inthat the impact of socialization into, and participation in thehigh-tech discipline of high-energy physics, profoundlyshaped members' perceptions of their environments, beliefsand social practices.

In a five-year ethnographic field study of high-energyparticle physics research laboratories in the United States,Europe and Japan, Traweek found that searching for thefundamental regularities of nature, which formed the core ofthis community's work, was defined by members as thehighest human pursuit. Attending to the social world ofpolitics or human motives was viewed as a waste of vitalenergy and time, better directed towards their"calling"—doing good physics. Only the elders of the commu-nity, after retiring from "doing physics," were permitted toengage in the human domains of administration, education,consulting, and so on. The findings of the Site #1 studyconcur with Traweek's in that members' perceptions oftechnical processes were foregrounded and social processeswere backgrounded.

That technology frameworks were used for understandingsocial relationships at Site #1 relates to Traweek's finding thatthe high-energy physics community's frameworks for socialorganization were based on disciplinary notions of "natural"relationships. For example, Traweek found that the disciplin-ary community's models of "detecting nature" (i.e., thefundamental natural elements and relations among these)were reflected in both their detector designs (i.e., theirtechnology) and in the social organization of their researchgroups. Specifically, the physicists believed that "valid data,"whether about atomic particles in the detectors or humanability in the discipline, had to be separated from "noise.""Noise" had to be discarded. Each research group's design ofa "detector" (i.e., a machine that includes the targets foraccelerated particles, recorders of particle collisions and thetrajectories of any new particles generated by collisions, andthe computing devices that analyze the "records") revealedthe group's strategy for discovering regularities and discardingnoise. For instance, some groups built detectors to search fora wide range of unanticipated particles, while others builtdetectors to clarify the "fine structure" of a specific class ofparticles.

W

Anthropology of W<M*

Furthermore, the physicists believed that there was afundamental regularity in the distribution of personal qualitiesamong men. For example, they believed that they werephysicists because they had been endowed by nature with agreater proportion of rationality (i.e., intelligence) than non-physicists. They also believed that the hierarchy within theirresearch labs reflected the natural distribution of the occu-pants' talents for doing science. Thus, by this logic, just asexperiments weeded out the noise in the data, the "finestructure" of the research labs weeded out 75% of the leastqualified potential entry-level research associates prior to thecompletion of their 6-year post-doctorate in high-energyphysics. These social practices seemed natural and, therefore,went unquestioned by the physicists, just as the socialpractices at Site #1 went unquestioned when membersfollowed the familiar logic of technical operations.

The findings that technical processes overshadowedhuman processes in Site #1 member perceptions is alsoconsistent with Kunda's (1992) characterization of theengineering culture of a large high technology organization.Kunda conducted a one-year ethnographic field study of theengineering division of an organization with established andwell-publicized practices for "managing" organizationalculture. Thus, consistent with the results of the current study,Kunda found that "technology and its aesthetics were themain concern of engineers," that they "were driven by afascination with neat things," "challenging design features,"and "interesting problems," and that they differentiatedthemselves by types of work and "informally by skill" (Kunda1992:2).

Also congruent with the results of this study, Kundafound that engineers tended toward "hard, obsessive workoften at the expense of family and other life" to the point of"burnout." "Time management" was a central organizationalconcern such that "commitments to unrealistic schedules inorder to win projects," "schedule slips," "crunches," and"delays" were predominant themes. In Kunda's study,organizational members also described "heavy work loads,""scheduling pressures," competitive battles and needs toreinforce the blurry boundaries between work life and homelife because technological work was "seductive."

The convergence of this study's findings with the onlyother related work provides evidence that indigenous modelsof human-technology relationships in high-technologyorganizations shape member perspectives of technical workand social organization in both the larger organizationalculture and the project teams that pervade everyday life. Therelationship is therefore worthy of further research, not merelyat the individual level in the tradition of human factorsresearch, but also at the level of the group. Through interac-tions with technological processes and products, groupscreate shared understandings of, and social forms for,appropriate social participation in technical work.

Also noteworthy and consistent with Traweek's (1988)and Kunda's (1992) research, technology was revered (i.e.,connoting respect and awe, as for a human actor) by techni-

cal personnel at Site #1. Technical work at Site #1 wasuniversally described by technical personnel as consuming,fascinating and thrilling. At the same time, participation intechnical project work led to an almost singular cognitive andemotional preoccupation with temporal problems and aninability to reflect on technical and human processes andtensions between work and family needs.

Together, these findings present an opportunity to explorea particular cultural pattern of human interaction withtechnology. Although unexamined by members, the relationalpattern involves a tacit belief that socially and technicallyappropriate forms of participation in this work domaindemands the individual sacrifices stated above (e.g., feelingconstantly pressed for time, and unable to balance family andwork needs). Thus, while project teams are transient, varia-tions on the organizational theme of making technicalprocesses and products figural are continually reenacted inthese temporary microcultures.

Whether such sacrifices are the necessary consequencesof doing technological work at the cutting edge or merely theresults of collective inattention to human issues in technicalorganizations remains an empirical question. The questionmerits both further research and social experimentation withother modelsof human-technology relationships. As suggestedby joerges (1989: 46) in his proposal for a new sociology oftechnology, future research might examine "what people dowith machines and machines with people-silently." Inaddition, future research might examine how human-machineinteractions shape human understandings and social participa-tion structures in high technology organizations.

A related conceptualization of this kind of human-technology interaction can be found in Hall's (1966, 1977,1983) work on "microtime."14 When examined from the"microtime" perspective, Site #1 representations of projectactivities can be seen as a culturally specific system of timeorganization embedded in a project scheduling technology.The system of time organization, termed "monochronic" (i.e.,doing "one thing at a time") by Hall (1966, 1977, 1983), hasmore recently been called "Newtonian time" (Adam 1990).

Congruent with the findings of this study, Hall and othersargue that monochronic patterns oi work allow for thedevelopment of a self-determined rank ordering of relevantexperience, quick analyses of tasks or procedures, theincorporation of many organizational functions, and totalconcentration on each scheduled activity. Hall found thatNorthern Europeans and people of such descent in the U.S.A.exhibited such a monochronic time pattern.

Interpersonal correlates of a monochronic temporalpattern include: difficulty comprehending nonverbal commu-nication; lack of awareness of interpersonal rhythmic syn-chrony; and interpersonal feedback cycles of several monthsduration, or difficulty reading context. This study's resultssupport Hall's finding that a monochronic system of organiz-ing time is prevalent in U.S. organizations. The currentfindings also suggest that the monochronic pattern is not

41

<rf Work Jtwfe*

merely the result of an external, culturally-based lack ofawareness of social context, but is also supported by organi-zational practices and representations that frame technicalprocedures in the foreground and human processes in thebackground.

There is additional impetus for human adaptation to thepattern when everyday life in an organization is dominatedby machine technologies. Machines lack the human ability toreciprocate, renegotiate and revise interactions in process,except within their programmed parameters. Thus, interac-tions with machines create a tighter boundary for acceptablehuman actions. When framed as a disembodied culturalpractice, this project scheduling technology raises interestingtheoretical questions about the organizational socializationprocess of Hispanic-Americans at Site #1.

For example, Hall noted that the Anglo-American systemof microtime organization contrasted with that of LatinAmericans. The Latin American pattern, a relatively poly-chronic system of time organization, was based on the''Mediterranean model of many things at once." In thepolychrome microtime system, continuous involvement withmany people and activities at the same time and completingtransactions were more important than adhering to a predeter-mined schedule.

Polychronic work organizations thus tended to involvelong- term relationships among people who were well-knownto each other and whose activities were centrally defined inrelationship to the whole. According to Hall, the interper-sonal correlates of the polychronic cultural patterning of timewere relative sensitivity to, or conscious awareness of,interpersonal rhythmic synchrony; facile reading of nonverbalcues; and shorter interpersonal feedback cycles, or sensitivityto context.

While both Hispanic and Anglo-American members ofthe technical work force at Site #1 were primarily focused onthe technical domain, Hispanics were the ones who providedinformation about human relationships and social organiza-tion. The relatively interpersonal orientation of Hispanics,even when operating in a high-technology context, areconsistent with the research literature. An interpersonalorientation has been termed "high context," "collectivism""allocentric" and "personalism" (Ferdman and Cortes 1992;Hofstede 1984; Marin and Triandis 1985). Thus, while theSite #1 "mainstream culture" shaped the perspective of allmembers, a culturally patterned sensitivity and orientation tohuman relationships was still visible among Hispanic person-nel.

Theoretically, these findings suggest that adaptation to"mainstream organizational culture" requires cultural changesin multiple domains (e.g., temporal, interactional, linguistic).Relative to the demands on Anglo-Americans, organizationallearning demands for Hispanic-American are greater duringthe process of organizational socialization. Similarly, day-to-day work experiences consistently place a greater variety ofsocial adaptation demands upon those Hispanic-Americans

who enter the organization with a relatively polychronicmicrotime pattern.

Weick and Van Orden (1991) suggest that some of theprocess losses that result from communication problems andcultural differences in global and project organizations can bealleviated through the adoption of more "information rich"communication technologies (i.e., systems that allow forimmediate feedback during interaction, systems that conveymultiple communication cues, systems that allow messages tobe personalized as opposed to anonymous and systems thatcan utilize a variety of languages and convey a variety ofmeanings). Based on these criteria, the richest systems ofcommunication are face-to-face and large group videoconferencing media and the poorest are written and numericmedia. Utilizing richer communication media in circum-stances that are equivocal may provide one means of partiallycircumventing such process problems in multiculturalorganizational contexts.

The finding that technical processes overshadow socialprocesses in the day-to-day perceptions of members hasseveral implications for management efforts to change the"organizational culture" to adapt to the increasing ethnicdiversity of the labor force at Site #1. The human-technologyrelationship issues outlined above suggest that changeprocesses will have to take the blind spots generated byexisting technical practices into account since these practiceslimit member abilities to perceive and reflect upon the socialaspects of technical organization. Routinely tapping theknowledge of nontechnical personnel at Site #1 may help tofacilitate this process.

Secondly, Kunda's (1992) study has implications forefforts to "manage" high tech organizational cultures. Hedefined his study as an investigation of "the implications of amanaged culture for the relationship between an organizationand its members." Three dimensions of the relationship wereexamined.

First, managerial theories of organizational culture werefound to depict the organization as "an undifferentiatedcommunity of committed members." Kunda concluded thatthese "culture" theories comprised an ideology and a norma-tive form of management control over members. Secondly,management presentations were found to be ritual enactmentarenas (i.e., persuasion dramas) for appropriate behavioral,affective and cognitive aspects of member roles. Thesepractices led to "counter-cultural" member expressions ofambivalence toward their ascribed roles. Thirdly, Kundaexamined technical member responses to their organization-ally prescribed roles and found that members defined"organizational selves" that were "distant from self" in orderto cope with their ambivalence regarding managerial intru-sions into the terrain of the personal "self." The implicationof these findings is that efforts to "manage" organizationalculture can lead to self-defeating social participation patternsif they are not negotiated with the involved members.

Volume XVItt, Number* 2 & 3

Anthropology of Work Review

Findings That Extend Our Understanding of the SituationallyBased Nature of Ethnic Processes in Organizations.

As noted above, Hispanics at Site #1 spontaneouslyprovided much of the information about human relationshipswithin the organization and team in this study. Given thetechnical focus of the organization, and previous research onsubjective culture, this orientation can be interpreted as acultural pattern.

At Site #1, there was a sharp distinction between Anglo-American and Hispanic-American perceptions of the centralityof ethnicity in the social construction of personal identity andhuman relationships. Ethnicity was largely perceived byAnglo-Americans as either irrelevant to work or as a sourceof possible individual handicap and communication problemsfor ethnic minorities. "Mainstream culture" was perceived asa way of life to which minority individuals had to adapt inorder to "fit in."

These findings are consistent with the research literature(Adlerand Jelinek 1986; Ferdman 1992; Thomas and Alderfer1989). From the viewpoint of managers, researchers andconsultants, multiculturalism within organizations was mostcommonly conceptualized as a nuisance, best ignored, or,more recently, as an inevitable negative consequence ofdoing business that should be minimized as much as possi-ble. These findings confirm research findings that organiza-tions in dominant U.S. organizational contexts influenceminority members to suppress their ethnic/racial identity interms of both surface symbols (e.g., dress and hairstyle) anddeeper level affiliations (e.g., political values and residencelocation) (Thomas and Alderfer 1989).

As found by Rosenfeld and Culbertson (1992) andFerdman (1992), Hispanics at Site #1 tended to downplaytheir ethnicity. Yet, when evaluating their teamwork in aspecific group, Hispanics noted that the freedom to beoneself, including the ability to use one's native languagefrom time to time, produced better work and a more support-ive and motivational group climate. Attempts by ethnicminority group members to be "ethnically anonymous" inorder to avoid negative stereotypes and discrimination werefound to lead to bicultural stress (i.e., the emotional andphysical effects of being forced to move continuouslybetween the cultural world of the organization and thecultural world of minority communities to which personnelbelong).

Like the particle physicists of Traweek's (1988) study,personnel at Site #1 believed that "there were no culturalinfluences on their activities." For example, Japanese andAmerican physicists used different cultural approaches tocollaboration on an international project (e.g., how to writethe proposal). The differences were framed by both groups ofphysicists as disputes regarding access of the Japanesedetector "user" group and the American detector "in-house"group, even though each national group's strategy reflectedan attempt to position itself within its own national fundingcontext. The physicists also "denied human agency in the

construction of science" while operating in a culture in whichscientists were construed as "male," nature was construed as"female," and the language used to describe particle collisionswas sexual.

"Assimilating" growing numbers of women and minoritygroup members into Site #1's "mainstream culture" maybecome increasingly untenable as an organizational socializa-tion strategy. "Assimilation" can place considerable burdenson personnel from different cultural backgrounds and makeindividual performance and stress management more prob-lematic. There is need to examine the current effects oforganizational policies and practices on initial organizationalsocialization, on career mobility at different levels of thehierarchy, and on the personal experiences of minority groupmembers.

The interplay of ethnicity with organizational, group andindividual circumstances revealed that minority experienceswere both quite diverse at the individual level of analysis andvaried within organizational areas. This suggests that attemptsto change the organizational culture require developingcontextualized views of ethnicity within a variety of organiza-tional "locations" (e.g., technical functions, highly diverse orhomogeneous areas, hierarchical level) and individual ethnicpatterns (e.g., the cultural patterns of ethnic minorities rearedin different U.S. regions and those of individuals who areforeign born and educated).

In the group studied, personal relationships that over-lapped with ethnicity actually facilitated team communicationand collaboration processes, generated additional technicalsupport for the project work, led to informal mentoringamong team members, and generated team spirit and a senseof belonging. This is consistent with Traweek's (1988)findings on how social networks operated within the high-energy physics community. For example, networks of relation-ships in her study served as interfaces with the formalorganization structures of laboratories and funding groups,evaluation forums for experiment proposals, and negotiationplatforms for the career paths of junior personnel.

The finding is also consistent with Erickson and Shultz's(1982) findings regarding the dynamics of intra-ethnic andinter-ethnic relationships in academic counseling interviews.Their research showed that in dyadic inter-ethnic interactionsin academic institutions, communication process problemswere predictable from cultural differences. However, inter-actional and work related outcomes were not. These weredetermined as much by the unique interrelationships thatemerged among task, cultural and social processes overtimeas they were by the effects of individual background variables(e.g., ethnic group, social class, etc.).

In this study, Hispanic-American sensitivity to humanrelationship processes contributed to the development ofpositive inter-ethnic interactions in some contexts despiteexpress inter-cultural communication problems. While theability to develop interpersonal rapport was influenced bysocial, cultural, and individual forces in academic counseling

Volume XVW, Numbers 43

interviews, it was also in part "interactionally produced" andtherefore not predictable solely from knowledge about theindividual parties to an interaction (see Erickson and Shultz1982). One practical implication is that kinds of trainingsuggested by inter-cultural communication research toimprove inter-cultural communication (e.g., cross-culturalcommunication, sense-making, negotiation and overloadmanagement training) also develop the kinds of skills deemednecessary for effective work in complex global and projectbased organizations (Weick and Orden 1991). •

Notes

1. The term Hispanic is a U.S. "ethnic" category that currentlylumps together the multi-ethnic/lingual/racial descendants ofnineteen Latin American countries that have Spanish as at least oneof their official languages and share a history of Spanish coloniza-tion. Similarly, Anglo-American in this study refers to U.S. citizensof European decent whose native language is English.

As a social phenomena, modem ethnicity defies a singledefinition (Berry 1979; Frances 1976; Glazerand Moynihan 1975;Isajiw 1974). Thus, following McGoldrick et al. (1982), in thecurrent study the members of an ethnic group are those individuals"who conceive of themselves as alike by virtue of their commonancestry, real or fictitious, and who are so regarded by others"(Shibutani and Kwan 1965:23, cited in McGoldrick, et al. 1982:4).From this perspective, despite the heterogeneity of Hispanic andAnglo-American groups in the U.S., these social categories do havecultural meaning (Alvirez 1981; Ramirez 1983).

2. Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group in the U.S. (U.S.Census Bureau 1991). Specifically, the Hispanic population growthrate was five times that of white non-Hispanics in the last decadeand Hispanics (Edwards, Thomas and Burch 1992) have comprised40% of the legal immigrants to the U.S. in the last three decades(Brimelow 1992). Hispanics also comprise a growing segment of theU.S. labor force, with a 52.4% growth rate in the civilian work forcebetween 1980 and 1989 in comparison to the non-Hispanic whitepopulation growth of 17.3% in the same period (Edwards, Thomasand Burch 1992).

3. Guthrie and Hall's (1981) definition of culture adopted for thebilingual classroom was applicable for the current investigation ofmulticultural work teams. They defined culture as "a form ofcommunication with learned and shared, explicit and implicit rulesfor perceiving, believing, evaluating and acting" (p. 5). In the presentstudy, the cultural frameworks of interest are those that are used toguide experiences with human groups and relationships, time andtaskwork. Since it is assumed that individuals learn such frameworksfrom the people with whom they interact over the course of their lifespan, it is assumed that individuals can acquire varying degrees ofcompetence in more than one cultural and/or linguistic system. Thus,individuals' ethnic group culture(s) may provide only one of severalacquired cultural frameworks for viewing the phenomena of interest.

4. These were the categories used by the organization studied torefer to 'ethnicity."

5. Task forces or project teams were defined in the literature(Gersick and Sacks 1990) as temporary work groups created by anorganization in order to conduct a single, non-routine task within aspecified period of time for external use and evaluation.

6. See Reyes (1992) for a complete description of this study.

7. In accordance with our agreement, I have attempted to protectthe anonymity of the organizations, divisions, groups, and individu-

als who so generously agreed to participate in this study. All of themhave been given pseudonyms and some of their identifying charac-teristics have been changed. The calendar dates of importantresearch events are presented in the number of months (all monthshave 30 days) from the start of the research project in order toobscure further the identity of the particular project teams studied.

8. Agar (1986) uses the term "strip" as a generic term for a varietyof phenomena that can serve as ethnographic data such as observa-tions, documents, or interviews.

9. During the initial entry phase, the researcher's greatest frequencyof referral contacts occurred with personnel who reflected theresearcher's own demographic characteristics, or with members ofthose groups that were later found to be the least efficient atfacilitating entry (e.g., 65% with junior level vs. 35% with senior,67% with nontechnical vs. 38% technical, 66% with Hispanic vs.33% non-Hispanic personnel).

10. At the time of the study, approximately 50% of the Hispanic-American technical work force at Site #1 had been recruited from asingle university, and thus the majority of this group belonged to oneethnic subgroup and one subtype of the engineering disciplines. Thispattern of Hispanic-American distribution within functions, disci-plines, divisions, levels and ethnic groups at Site #1 determinedwhere Hispanic personnel could be found for the study and,therefore, determined to some extent where interviews and partici-pant observation was conducted. The shaded boxes in Figure 2present the location of the interviews regarding the organizationalcontext in the Site #1 organizational chart.

11. Each Major Organizational Project (a pseudonym for their term)was conceptualized comprising several levels of hierarchicallyorganized subprojects (i.e., pseudonym). For each kind of subprojectwithin a Major Project, there was a "standard flow" (i.e., a genericframework for the operations required to assemble the Subproject).The actual schedule of processing activities (e.g., physical assemblyof equipment and testing its hardware connections) required tocomplete a particular Subproject "is built" from its standard flow.Level 2 of the schedule presents a visual temporal overview of themultiple upcoming projects and their subprojects to all of theorganizational sites. Level III on the figure is the "MilestoneSchedule." It shows an overview of the operational phases of themajor project. The lower level, Level IV in the figure, is "the MajorProject Processing Schedule," which shows shift-level operations foreach subproject. Level V breaks activities into three 8-hour shifts perday over a number of days to show when and where each divisionactivity is scheduled, how long it will take, who is managing it, andwhat hardware, manpower and supports are required to complete it.

12. Oral language acquisition was noted by Hispanics and partici-pants in nontechnical areas to be complicated by the extremelycomplex technical language of the organization, which includedmany site-specific words, idioms and abbreviations. For example, theever-growing abbreviation manual for technical terms was 376 pagesin length at the time of the study.

13. It is also important to note that not all of the core or peripheralteam members, organizations, divisions and branches collectivelyincluded in the study were mentioned as part of the study by eachinterviewee. Given the unstable nature of group composition,inattention to individual characteristics of the team is not surprising.

14. Hall named the systems of time organization that are specific toa cultural group "microtime." According to Hall, microtime canfunction as an anthropological window on aspects of culturalorganization that are tacit/unconscious. Two very different systemsof organizing time, the "polychrome" and the "monochrome" modes,

Witt, Numbers 2 & 3

Anthropology <rf Work Revhw

provide a useful way of conceptualizing a cultural differencebetween Latin Americans and American-Europeans.

References

Adam, B. 1990. Time and Social Theory. Philadelphia: TempleUniversity Press.

Adler, N. j . 1983. "Cross-Cultural Management: The Ostrich andthe Trend." Academy of Management Review 8(2): 226-232.

. 1992. "Academic and Professional Communities ofDiscourse: Generating Knowledge on Transnational Human ResourceManagement." Journal of International Business Studies. ThirdQuarter. 551-569.

. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior,3rd ed. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.Adler, N. J., R. Doktor, and S. G. Redding. 1986. "From theAtlantic to the Pacific Century: Cross-cultural Management Re-viewed." Journal of Management 12(2): 295-318.

Adler, N. J., and M. Jelinek. 1986. "Is Organization Theory CultureBound?" Human Resource Management 25(1): 73-90.

Agar, M. 1986. Speaking of Ethnography. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Alvirez, D. 1981. "Socioeconomic Patterns and Diversity amongHispanics." Research Bulletin 4(2-3): 11-14.

Berry, J. W. 1979. "Research in Multicultural Societies: Implicationsof Cross Cultural Methods." Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology10(4): 415-434.

Black, J. S., and M. Mendenhall. 1990. Academy of ManagementReview 15(1): 113-136.

Boyacigiller, N. B., and N. J. Adler. 1991. "The Parochial Dinosaur-Organizational Science in a Global Context." Academy of Manage-ment Review 16(2): 262-290.

Brimelow, P. 1992. "The Fracturing of America." Forbes, March30: 74^75.

Cox, T. 1990. "Problems with Research by Organizational Scholarson Issues of Race and Ethnicity." The journal of Applied BehavioralScience 26(1): 5-23.

Cox, T., and S. Blake. 1991. "Managing Cultural Diversity:Implications for Organizational Competitiveness." Academy ofManagement Executive 5(3): 45-56.

Cox, T., and S. Nkomo. 1990. "Invisible Men and Women: AStatus Report on Race as a Variable in Organization BehaviorResearch." journal of Organizational Behavior 11: 419-31.

Czamiawska-Joerges, B. 1992. Exploring Complex Organizations:a Cultural Perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Edwards, J. E., M. E. Thomas, and R. L Burch. 1992. "HispanicRepresentation in the Federal Government: Lessons from Navy'sEqual Employment Opportunity Enhancement Research Program."In Hispanics in the Workplace. S. B. Knouse, P. Rosenfeld, and A.L. Culbertson, eds., pp. 231-245. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Publications.

Erickson, F. E. 1985. "Listening and Speaking." In Languages andLinguistics: the Interdependence of Theory, Data, and Application.D. Tannen and J. E. Alatis, eds., pp. 294 - 319. Washington, DC:Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics.

Erickson, F., and J. Shultz. 1982. The Counselor as Gatekeeper:Social Interaction in Interviews. New York: Academic Press.

Ferdman, B. M. 1992. "The Dynamics of Ethnic Diversity inOrganizations: Toward Integrative Models." In Issues, Theory and

Research in Industrial/organizational Psychology. K. Kelley, ed.,pp. 339-384. Amsterdam: North Holland Press.

Ferdman, B. M., and A. C. Cortes. 1992. "Culture and IdentityAmong Hispanic Managers in an Anglo Business." In Hispanics andWork. S. B. Knouse, P. Rosenfield, and A. Culbertson, eds., pp. 246-277. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Frances, E. K. 1976. Interethnic Relations: an Essay in SociologicalTheory. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Geertz, C. 1983. "The Way We Think Now: Toward an Ethnogra-phy of Modern Thought." In Local Knowledge: Further Essays inInterpretive Anthropology. C. Geertz, pp. 147-163. New York:Basic Books.

Gersick, C. J. G. 1988. "Time and Transition in Work Teams:Toward a New Model of Group Development." Academy ofManagement Journal 31 (1): 9-41.

Gersick, C. J. G., and M. L. D. Sacks. 1990. "Summary: TaskForces." In Croups That Work: Creating Conditions for EffectiveTeamwork. J. R. Hackman, ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Glazer, N., and D. P. Moynihan, eds. 1975. Ethnicity: Theory andExperience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Gumperz, J. J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Guthrie, G. P. and W. S. Hall. 1981. "Introduction." In Culture andthe Bilingual Classroom: Studies in Classroom Ethnography. H. T.Trueba, G. P. Guthrie, and K. Hu-Pei Au, eds. Rowley, MA :Newbury House Publishers.

Hackman, J. R., ed. 1990. Croups That Work: Creating Conditionsfor Effective Teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hall, E. T. 1966. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, NJ:Anchor/Doubleday.

. 1977. Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor/Doubleday.

. 1983. The Dance of Life: the Other Dimension of Time.Garden City, NJ: Anchor/Doubleday.

Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture's Consequences: International Differ-ences in Work Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Isajiw, W. W. 1974. "Definitions of Ethnicity." Ethnicity 1: 111 -124.

Joerges, B. 1989. "Romancing the Machine-Reflections on theSocial Scientific Construction of Computer Reality." InternationalStudies of Management and Organization 19(4): 24-50.

Jupp, J., C. Roberts, and J. Cook-Gumperz. 1987. "Language andDisadvantage: the Hidden Process." In Language and SocialIdentity. J. J. Gumpertz, ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Knouse, S. B., P. Rosenfeld, and A. L. Culbertson. 1992. "Hispanicsand Work: an Overview. In Hispanics and the Workplace. S. B.Knouse, P. Rosenfeld, and A. L. Culbertson, eds. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Kunda, G. 1992. Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment ina High-Tech Corporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Laurent, A. 1983. "The Cultural Diversity of Western Conceptionsof Management." International Studies of Management andOrganization 13(1-2): 75-96.

. 1986. "The Cross-cultural Puzzle of International HumanResource Management." Human Resource Management 25(1):91-102.

Vottm*

Anthropology of Work

Marin, G. and H. C. Triandis. 1985. "Allocentrism as an ImportantCharacteristic of the Behavior of Latin Americans and Hispanics." InCross-cultural and National Studies in Social Psychology. R.Diaz-Guerrero, ed., pp. 85-104. New York: North Holland Press.

Maruyama, M. 1978a. "Psychotypology and its Application toCross-disciplinary, Cross-professional, and Cross-cultural Communi-cation." In Perspectives on Ethnicity. R. E. Holloman, and S. A.Ariutinov, eds., pp.23-75. Paris: Mouton, The Hague.

. 1978b. "Hetergenisties and Morphogenetics: Toward a NewConcept of the Scientific." Theory and Society 5: 75-96.

. 1980. "Mindscapes and Science Theories." CurrentAnthropology 21(5): 600.

. 1982. "Cross-cultural Perspectives on Social and CommunityChange." In Handbook of Social Intervention. E. Seidman, ed., pp.21-32. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

. 1985. "Mindscapes: How to Understand Specific Situationsin Multicultural Management." Asia Pacific journal of Management2: U5-49.

. 1992. "Changing Dimensions in International Business."Academy of Management Executives 6(3): 88-96.

McCracken, G. 1988. The Long Interview. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

McGoldrick, M., J. Giordano, and J. K. Pearce, eds. 1996. Ethnicityand Family Therapy, 2nd edition. New York: Guilford Press.

. 1982. Ethnicity and Family Therapy. New York: GuilfordPress.

McLeod, P. L. 1992. "The Effects of Ethnic Diversity on IdeaGeneration in Small Groups." Academy of Management Best PapersProceedings, pp. 227-231.

Mishler, E.G. 1986. Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ramirez III, M. 1983. Psychology of the Americas: MulticulturalPerspectives in Personality and Mental Health. New York: AcademicPress.

Reyes, A. M. 1992. "Multi-Ethnic Project Team Relationships in aHigh Tech Organizational Culture." Doctoral dissertation. Univer-sity of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Rosenfeld, P. and A. Culbertson. 1992. "Hispanics in the Military.In Hispanics in the Workplace. S. B. Knouse, P. Rosenfeld, and A.L. Culbertson, eds., pp. 211-230. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Schofield, J. W. 1986. "Causes and Consequences of the Color-blind Perspective." In Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism. J. F.Dovidio and S. L. Gaertner, eds., pp. 231-53. Orlando: AcademicPress.

Schwartzmann, H. B. 1986. "Research on Workgroup Effectiveness:an Anthropological Critique." In Designing Effective Workgroups.Goodman and Assoc, eds., pp. 237-274. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shibutani, T. and K. M. Kwan. 1965. Ethnic Stratification. NewYork: Macmillan.

Smith, K. K. 1985. "Epistemological Problems in ResearchingHuman Relationships." In Exploring Clinical Methods for SocialResearch. D. N. Berg and K. K. Smith, eds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Spradley, J. P. 1980. Participant Observation. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.

Tannen, D. 1984. Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk AmongFriends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Thomas, D. A. and C. P. Alderfer. 1989. "The Influence of Race onCareer Dynamics: Theory and Research on Minority Career Experi-ences." In Handbook of Career Theory. M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall,and B. S. Lawrence, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Traweek, S. 1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of HighEnergy Physics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Van Maanen, J. 1988. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Weick, K. E. and P. W. Van Ordern. 1991. "Organizing on aGlobal Scale: A Research and Teaching Agenda." Human ResourceManagement 29(1): 49-61.

Volume XVttt, Numbers 2 & 3