Global Virtual Team Communication - An exploratory study on what challenges teams face in a virtual setting.
Master’s Thesis 30 credits Department of Business Studies Uppsala University Spring Semester of 2018
Date of Submission: 2018-05-29
Patrik Blomqvist Oscar Nordstrand
Supervisor: Cecilia Pahlberg
!
Abstract(
Research Aim: The aim of this study is to identify specific challenges impeding effective communication in a Global Virtual Team (GVT) operating in the energy sector.
Research Method: This study uses a qualitative method, focusing on a single case study at the energy company Uniper. Data was obtained through 21 semi-structured face-to-face interviews.
Results: Despite considerable developments in Information Communication Technology (ICT) over the last three decades, GVT still faces multiple communication challenges. Geographically dispersed teams are struggling to create team coherence and team efficiency. GVT needs additional attention from both corporations and academics in order for companies to successfully implement and reap the benefits of their virtual operations.
Research limitations: A multiple case study approach which compares several corporations would be of interest. By extending the research scope, communication challenges can be better understood and awareness of how obstacles can be addressed will be improved.
Practical implications: The presented findings acknowledge the existing challenges facing teams which operate in a virtual setting. This will allow corporations to be more aware of GVT challenges whilst minimizing or eliminating existing GVT challenges.
Originality: This research aims to complement existing research focusing on extending knowledge about still existing GVT communication challenges.
Keywords: Global Virtual Team, GVT, Virtual Communication, ICT, Technology, Interpersonal Relations, Trust, Culture, Leadership.
! !
Acknowledgements(
It is with the outmost sincere and tremendous gratitude we would like to thank all the people who have participated, supported and contributed to our Master thesis during the Spring of 2018. We would further like to bring forward our participants to our study at Uniper Procurement in Malmö, Sweden and Düsseldorf, Germany for their contribution.
Furthermore, we would like to show our appreciation to our exceptionally and compassionate supervisor, Mrs. Cecilia Pahlberg for her valuable and constructive feedback during the development of this research paper. Further, we would like to give a special thanks to our opponent group, Mr. Johan Sundell and Ms. Linn Evangelisti for their tremendous guidance and valuable insights throughout this paper, also, all peers giving feedback throughout our seminars during the semester.
With this thesis, we end our academic career and now we look forward to face new challenges as Alumni’s from Uppsala University, Department of Business Studies.
Uppsala University, May 29th 2018
Patrik Blomqvist Oscar Nordstrand
! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!TABLE&OF&CONTENTS&
ABSTRACT( ( ( ( ( ( ((((((((((((((((((((( ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS( ( ( ( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
1.(INTRODUCTION& 1&
1.1(RESEARCH(BACKGROUND& 1( 1.2(RESEARCH(PROBLEM& 2( 1.3(RESEARCH(AIM( 4( 1.4(RESEARCH(QUESTION( 5( 1.5(INTRODUCTION(TO(CASE(COMPANY(–(UNIPER(( 5(
2.(LITERATURE(REVIEW& 6&
2.1(GLOBAL(VIRTUAL(TEAM( 6( (((((2.1.1(WHAT(IS(A(GLOBAL(VIRTUAL(TEAM?( 6( (((((2.1.2(GEOGRAPHICAL(DISTANCE(IN(GVT( 7( 2.2(COMMUNICATION(IN(GVT( 8( 2.3(COMMUNICATION(CHALLENGES(IN(GVT( 9( (((((2.3.1(TECHNOLOGY(IN(GVT( 9( (((((2.3.2(INTERPERSONAL(RELATIONS(IN(GVT( 10( (((((2.3.3(TRUST(IN(GVT( 11( (((((2.3.4(CULTURE(IN(GVT( 12( (((((2.3.5(LEADERSHIP(IN(GVT( 14( 2.4(THEORETICAL(FRAMEWORK( 15(
3.(METHOD& 17&
3.1(RESEARCH(DESIGN( 17( (((((3.1.1(ABDUCTIVE(APPROACH( 17( (((((3.1.2(QUALITATIVE(RESEARCH( 17( (((((3.1.3(EXPLORATORY(RESEARCH( 18( 3.2(DATA(COLLECTION( 18( (((((3.2.1(SEMIVSTRUCTURED(INTERVIEWS( 18( (((((3.2.2(OBSERVATIONS( 19( (((((3.2.3(SINGLE(CASE(STUDY( 20( (((((3.2.4(SELECTION(OF(RESPONDENTS( 21( (((((3.2.5(INTERVIEW(GUIDE( 22( (((((3.2.6(DATA(PROCESSING( 24( 3.3(ETHICAL(CONSIDERATIONS( 25( (((((3.3.1(NONVDISCLOSURE(AGREEMENT( 25( (((((3.3.2(TRUSTWORTHINESS(AND(AUTHENTICITY( 26(
4.(EMPIRICAL(FINDINGS(AND(ANALYSIS& 28&
4.1(GVT(AT(UNIPER( 28( 4.2(TECHNOLOGY(IN(GVT( 28( 4.2.1(ANALYSIS(OF(TECHNOLOGY(IN(GVT( 30( 4.3(INTERPERSONAL(RELATIONS(IN(GVT( 31( 4.3.1(ANALYSIS(OF(INTERPERSONAL(RELATIONS(IN(GVT( 32( 4.4(TRUST(IN(GVT( 34( 4.4.1(ANALYSIS(OF(TRUST(IN(GVT( 36( 4.5(CULTURE(IN(GVT( 37( 4.5.1(ANALYSIS(OF(CULTURE(IN(GVT( 38( (
! !
4.6(LEADERSHIP(IN(GVT( 39( 4.6.1(ANALYSIS(OF(LEADERSHIP(IN(GVT( 41(
5.((DISCUSSION& 44&
5.1(THE(UPDATED(THEORETICAL(MODEL( 47(
6.(CONCLUSION& 49&
6.1(CONCLUDING(REMARKS( 49( 6.2(RESEARCH(LIMITATIONS( 50( 6.3(RESEARCH(CONTRIBUTION(( 50( 6.4(FUTURE(RESEARCH( 51(
7.(REFERENCE(LIST& &
APPENDICES( ( ( APPENDIX(1:(INTERVIEW(GUIDE( ( APPENDIX(2:(INTERVIEW(QUESTION( ( APPENDIX(3:(THEMATIC(ANALYSIS(( (
LIST(OF(FIGURES& &
FIGURE(1:(THE(THEORETICAL(FRAMEWORK(BASED(ON(DAIM(ET(AL.((2012)(( 16( FIGURE(2:(UPDATED(THEORETICAL(FRAMEWORK(( 48( ( LIST(OF(TABLES& ( ( TABLE(1:(RESPONDENT(SUMMARY(( 22( TABLE(2:(OPERATIONALIZATION(OF(THEORETICAL(FRAMEWORK(( 23( TABLE(3:(EXAMPLE(OF(THEMATIC(ANALYSIS(( 25 ( ( ( (
! !
This page intentionally left blank.
! !
1. Introduction
The first chapter will introduce the background, followed by the identified research problem related to communication challenges in Global Virtual Teams. The chapter will then present the aim of the study, followed by the research question to be answered throughout the paper. The chapter will end by a presentation of the case company.
1.1(Research(Background( ( Over the last 30 years, multinational corporations (MNC) have become more globally integrated and therefore increasingly geographically dispersed (Cornett, Karlsson & Wallin 2018; Forsgren 2013; Powell, 2017). Multiple scholars agree that the phenomenon of globalization has evolved due to the technological progress which has taken place over the past few decades; technology is seen as a key enabler of globalization (Baldwin, 2016; BCG, 2016; Montagna, 2017). Berisha-Shaqiri (2015) stresses how the technological revolution has and will continue to change the way corporations operate. This has resulted in the reshaping of industries, forcing corporations to master the technological developments which have redefined the competitive landscape (McKinsey, 2018). ICT has prevailed in the modern era, giving rise to vast possibilities, as well as creating new challenges for corporations to overcome (Deloitte, 2018).
Valacich and Schneider (2017) claim that globalization, aided by technology, is the integration and development of economies throughout the modern world as enabled by ICT. By implementing ICT in their organizations, corporations can adapt to a new landscape of business operations that can drastically improve their virtual communication capabilities (Maduka et al., 2018; McKinsey, 2018). Corporations can enable ICT for improved communication throughout the whole organization, putting together global teams and reducing time to market changes, enabling them to respond to dynamic threats as they occur (Batarseh, Daspit & Usher, 2017; Maduka et al., 2018; Welch, 2014). McKinsey (2018) notes that 80% of global executives in MNCs highlight the importance of ICT as it enables team collaboration and strengthens global business operations. By simplifying business operations through the provision of efficient communication tools, corporations can establish connectivity within global organizations (BCG, 2016; Christensen & Kowalczyk, 2017).
! 1! !
As a result of ICT advances improving organizational communication, global connectivity has flourished. Scholars have described how approximately 60% of MNC employees spend one day or more working in a virtual setting (Laitinen & Valo 2018; Maduka et al., 2018). This figure is predicted to increase over the coming decades, rising to approximately 1.3 billion people working in a virtual context (Zuofa & Ochieng, 2017). Due to the explosion of ICT use and sophistication in the last three decades, traveling to meet face-to-face is now rare due to its multiple disadvantages, including time, financial costs and environmental impact. The sophistication of ICT enables teams to function without a need for geographical proximity
As a result of these developments, the phenomena of Global Virtual Teams (GVT) have received increased attention from both academics and MNCs. A GVT has been described as an evolutionary group of people who rarely meet face-to-face, and yet work interdependently and have day-to-day contact via ICT (Maduka et al., 2018). GVTs are now an integrated and important part of today's business operations; however, there are still multiple challenges for MNCs to overcome in order to remain competitive; hence the importance of ICT and virtual communication within global business operations.
1.2(Research(Problem( ( ICT is argued to enable easier, faster and more cost efficient ways of establishing connectivity across business operations (Martinic, Fertalj & Kalpic, 2012). By using effective virtual communication, GVT operations could enhance team collaboration and team efficiency (Marlow, Lacerenza & Salas, 2017). Using GVT allows faster and shared decision-making processes and adaption to dynamic market changes, whilst simultaneously improving business operations (Valacich & Schneider, 2017). Although the significance of GVT communication is well known, questions remain regarding functionality and efficiency in the virtual context in which corporations face multiple communication challenges (Marlow et al., 2018). Since communication is executed virtually in GVTs, a lack of human interaction and face-to-face communication is a given. Scholars therefore maintain that ICT is the core pillar of a successful GVT (Wildman & Griffith, 2015). Batarseh, Daspit and Usher (2017) highlight that only 18% of all GVTs achieve communicative success. Deloitte (2018) demonstrates the complexity of GVTs by presenting an executive report in which 1600 executives describe
! 2! !
how ICT offers huge opportunities to corporations, while also presenting many challenges and a great deal of uncertainty. One cause of GVT complexity is the lack of a best practice, with no one-size-fits-all type of concept applicable to complex situations (McKinsey, 2015). Corporations are still in the early stages of implementing ICT; gaining insights into the challenges of GVTs is therefore of crucial importance.
An industry that has received vast amounts of interest in the last few decades is the energy sector (McKinsey, 2017). Energy consumption is predicted to double by the year 2050; concerns about global energy consumption have increased among general society as well as among scholars (World Energy Statistics, 2017). Moreover, the energy market is characterized by unpredictability, as well as market instability and fluctuations (Seo & Chae, 2016) due to rapid technological developments over the last few decades. Rapidly changing customer preferences due to the global accessibility of better, cheaper and more environmentally friendly energy sources require corporations to quickly react to market changes in which investments in ICT is argued crucial (Han et al., 2017; McKinsey, 2017).
The energy sector is characterized by digital development and substantial investments which impact the highly volatile market structure (Bain & Company, 2017). Modern technology helps to bring down costs and increase the availability of energy sources. The implementation of ICT in the energy sector is predicted to decrease corporate expenses by approximately $1.100 billions in total by the year 2035 and simultaneously increase productivity by nearly 40% (Morgan Stanley, 2017). According to the IEA (2017), in 2017, total investment within the energy sector reached $1.700 billion worldwide, which accounted for 2.2% of the global GDP. Based upon these substantial investments and the dynamic fluctuations which characterize the sector, MNCs operating within the energy sector need to think beyond the classic industry definition of producing, storing and distributing domestic energy, as well as expand their focus beyond domestic markets (Bain & Company, 2017). Global energy corporations are required to focus on global demand and shifting customer preferences facilitated by implementing ICT tools.
Coming to decisions regarding substantial investments in ICT includes a high degree of risk (Haas et al., 2011). Nonetheless, it is a vital issue that needs to be faced by modern organizations and MNCs when organizing their global operations and creating global
! 3! !
connectivity (Valacich & Schneider, 2017) with central information, transparent structures and distributed by reliable technological instruments (EY, 2015).
The concept of ICT has been analyzed within the field of information sharing from a meta-perspective (Marlow et al., 2018). Surprisingly, previous research into the overall communication challenges which create obstacles for teams when establishing efficient GVT communication is lacking (ibid.). Instead, previous research has centered around a macroeconomic perspective, which has focused on the role of communication technology in promoting economic development (Altschuller & Benbunan-Fich, 2010). Chang, Chuang and Chao (2011) highlight the importance of investigating virtual communication in multiple settings and further, gaining a deeper understanding of the factors which obstruct efficient GVT communication. Existing research has been updated, with modern scholars pointing to a present research gap which is due to the inconsistency of findings, and the multiple factors still challenging GVT communication (Marlow et al., 2018). Hence, in concurrence with Marlow et al. (2018), this study advocates the importance of investigating GVT communication challenges within the energy sector.
1.3(Research(Aims(
Virtual communication is argued to be a crucial factor for firm competitiveness on a global scale, allowing interaction across businesses’ operations regardless of geographical location. GVT communication is complex due to multiple factors and Daim et al. (2012) name the following key challenges to efficient GVT communication: Technology, Interpersonal Relations, Trust, Culture and Leadership. Given the high importance of having efficient communication in global operations and in GVT, our aim is to investigate what communication challenges GVTs face in a virtual setting.
We intend to address the research question using a qualitative method, conducting semi- structured interviews with employees from the case company Uniper, an MNC operating in the energy sector. Interviews were conducted at the German HQ and the Swedish subsidiary, with interviewees with both managerial and non-managerial experience. All interviewees had diverse international backgrounds, and had experience in operating in GVTs and using virtual communication in day-to-day operations.
! 4! !
1.4(Research(Question(
To address the aim of this study and gain further knowledge which can be beneficial to both academics and practitioners, the following research question is of interest to answer:
- Which factors challenge efficient communication for Global Virtual Teams operating in the energy sector?
1.5(Introduction(to(Case(Company(–(Uniper((
Uniper was founded in 2016 when it split from its previous parent company, E.ON (Uniper, 2016). Uniper is now an industry leading MNC active in more than 40 countries, with approximately 12,600 employees around the world and an annual turnover of approximately €67 billion (Uniper, 2017). Due to the size of Uniper and its multiple business operations, the company makes use of GVTs to efficiently communicate across borders. Uniper is one of the largest energy traders in Europe, both selling and buying a broad scope of energy sources from a worldwide market (Uniper, 2016). The company provides both B2Bs and B2Cs with products such as natural gas, electricity, hard coal, liquefied natural gas, and fossil fuels etc. (Uniper, 2016).
Uniper is a modern energy supply company, offering both extensive technical and commercial expertise to its customers (Uniper, 2016). Uniper further aims to deliver reliable, competitively priced energy to all parties involved, whether customers or suppliers, with a combination of high precision and speed. With over a century’s worth of expertise, Uniper has an extensive business network which includes experts from all over the world, with a broad range of engineering and technical expertise (ibid.). Uniper defines itself as a “one-stop-shop”, providing a holistic approach to customers, supporting the complete supply chain to ensure a positive result by reducing risk and cost, and at the same time delivering state of the art performance.
This study’s data was obtained through conducting 21 face-to-face interviews with employees at the Uniper Procurement division located in Dusseldorf, Germany (the HQ) and its subsidiary in Malmö, Sweden.
! 5! !
2.(Literature(Review(
This section presents the theoretical framework to provide the reader with further knowledge and concepts valid for this research. The chapter portrays the theory of GVT in relation to GVT communication challenges. The chapter ends with an illustration of the theoretical framework, interconnecting the presented concepts into a figure.
2.1(Global(Virtual(Team(( 2.1.1(What(is(a(Global(Virtual(Team?(
Multiple scholars reason there are numerous definitions of GVT due to its evolution among several industries (Carter et al., 2014; Deloitte, 2018). Wildman and Griffin (2015) define GVT as “..An interdependent virtual team whose members are geographically and time-dispersed across cultural and national boundaries” (p. 14). The phenomenon of GVT has become more and more integrated into corporate structure due to increased globalization and advancements in ICT (Castellano, Davidson and Khelladi, 2016). Scholars claim an increased number of corporations have shifted its operations into a virtual setting to face new demands and saving costs (Alsharo, Gregg & Ramirez, 2017).
GVT consist of a group of people exploiting technology to establish connectivity and identify themselves within a virtual business unit or team (Castellano, Davidson &
Khelladi, 2016; Carter et al.,(2014; Maduka et al.,(2018; Valacich & Schneider, 2017). A GVT consists of individuals working independently towards a shared goal, whilst operating geographically dispersed, regardless of time and space (Batarseh, Daspit & Usher, 2017). This enable team member to work simultaneously on the same project assignments without the need of proximity, which leads to increased competitiveness and efficiency (Zuofa & Ochieng, 2017.) GVT could be composed on a temporary or permanent basis, assigned to accomplish strategically important tasks (Castellano, Davidson & Khelladi, 2016).
Historically, GVT was established during the 1990´s as a way for corporations to globally establish connectivity on several markets and to stay competitive (Alsharo, Gregg & Ramirez, 2017). Earlier corporations used various task units, composed in temporary project groups, with a defined target and a limited project life cycle to solve various problems (Valacich & Schneider, 2017). These virtual teams were established with the
! 6! !
ICT revolution when traditional structures failed to solve global targets (Binder, 2009). GVT is considered to be an extension of “Virtual Teams”, previously stated due to the Global geographical dispersion among team members (Castellano, Davidson & Khelladi, 2016). Benefits of integrating GVT are argued multiple. GVT enables expertise and know-hows to rapidly response to dynamic fluctuations in a global market. Hence, argued benefits for the corporations using GVT are e.g. cost saving, increased productivity, market connectivity and access to global talent and knowledge (ibid.).
Even though GVT provide a range of advantages improving organizational operations, challenges exist applying virtual communication in a global setting. Only 18 % of GVT have achieved communicative success, declared with multiple explanations rooted to the complexity of establish efficient GVT communication (Batarseh, Daspit & Usher, 2017; Magnier-Watanabe et al., 2017).
2.1.2(Geographical(Distance(in(GVT(
Collaboration plays a crucial part in team success (Batarseh, Daspit & Usher, 2017). Efficient collaboration in teams can develop benefits for corporations, such as knowledge sharing, a supportive culture and a willingness to share risk and rewards among team members. Castellano, Davidson and Khelladi, (2016) claim a lack of physical interaction decreases team collaboration. Bailey (2013) aligns a lack of face-to-face communication to be considered one main obstruction of virtual collaboration. As geographical distance is significant for GVT, the level of commitment and engagement in team collaboration could be limited (Zuofa & Ochieng, 2017). One explanation for this could be described by the lack of occasions for GVT members interact in a non-work related context, as these group activities tend to favor team collaboration. Daim et al. (2012) highlights the importance of team commitment and engagement in GVT. By sharing ideas and knowledge openly and frequently between members, corporations can solve problems and increase team efficiency.
Another aspect for corporations using GVT is to raise awareness of benefits and challenges related to time zone differences due to geographical dispersion (Nedrick et al., 2014). Working in different time zones could be beneficial for GVT because group members can operate 24 hours per day (Castellano, Davidson & Khelladi, 2016). In contradiction, working in different time zones limit GVT to synchronize internal
! 7! !
communication, which could lead to inefficient communication and collaboration (Zuofa & Ochieng, 2017). Working in different time zone could be a challenge for GVT when deadlines are critical and members are unavailable as a direct response to geographical spread among group members. Marlow et al. (2018) describe how connectivity generates capacity to coordinate activities and resources across corporations, no matter of geographical spread.
2.2 Communication in GVT Communication is fundamental for all types of interaction and present in both face-to- face and virtual conversations (Allwood, 2013). There are multiple definitions of communication as the concept is perceived and executed differently among individuals in
various settings (Daim et al.,( 2012). Valacich and Schneider (2017) focuses the importance efficient communication has on team performance as a basis for collaboration. To provide a further understanding, this study interpret communication in line with Tosi and Pilati (2011) definition “..Communication is the process by which meaning is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs or behavior “ (p. 241). Communication is based on the interaction between individuals. However, communication is interpreted differently by individuals, not always through a common or general understanding (Allwood, 2013). Communication is therefore complex due to the subject interpretation and is hard to predict as it involves critical factors impacting communication. Marlow et al., (2018) describe communication to be dependent on the communication quality, which is argued to be; clear, effective, complete, fluent and on time.
To deeper comprehend the critical factors of communication and how these affect communication quality, pre-knowledge about the context itself is crucial (Collins, 2013). Knowledge can be separated into tacit and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is the information that can not be communicated through directions and manuals, instead, learning by doing is applicable (Johannessen et al., 2001). Tacit knowledge is learned from experiences and is claimed to be complex to communicate and replicate in dynamic contexts. In comparison, explicit knowledge is described as information the user can interpret and understand from a theory basis (Collins, 2013). Explicit knowledge usually occurs in organizations as a direct response of provided routines and material received
! 8! !
from the corporation. Grant (1996) claim tacit knowledge to be one of the most important sources of corporate value. The created value within organizations are crucial to be communicated to all parties to establish competitive advantages, although its complexity in being learned and communicated throughout the corporation (Hardin, Fuller & Davison, 2007).
ICT has experienced a transition regarding how information can improve GVT operations and is now seen as one core foundation of global operations (Marlow, Lacerenza & Salas, 2017). The rapid transition of technology impacts MNC using communication tools and how it is implemented into global business operations (Castellano, Davidson & Khelladi, 2016). Laitinen and Valo (2018) describe adoption of ICT enables corporations to practice different communication channels sharing content. Sharing content simplifies collaboration as it unleashes creativity due to the access of mutual knowledge. Valacich and Schneider (2017) argue positive aspects for corporations implementing ICT are faster decision processes and lower traveling costs, further being one key driver of business growth (World Economic Forum, 2016). One example is Hewlett-Packard (HP) that implemented ICT in Argentina and Korea, leading to increased efficiency and reduced costs by $1.000.000 using tools e.g. Skype, Lync etc. (Magnier-Watanabe et al., 2017).
2.3(Communication(Challenges(in(GVT 2.3.1(Technology(in(GVT(
The ICT revolution and the increased implementation of GVT have resulted in a new range of unique challenges for corporations to handle (Eisenberg & Mattarelli, 2017). In line, several GVT challenges related to virtual communication have appeared for corporations to handle. Daim et al. (2012) has created a framework for analysis used to illustrate the communication challenges in GVT. This framework presents five challenges for communication in a virtual context namely: Technology, Interpersonal Relations, Trust, Leadership and Cultural Differences.
Daim et al. (2012) describes the importance of technology in GVT: “Without Internet, email, video conference and audio bridges, [global] virtual teams can't even exist” (p. 200). Due to the lack of face-to-face communication in GVT, these teams fully rely on virtual communication and a solid technological infrastructure is therefore of crucial
! 9! !
importance for GVT (Kankanhalli, Tan & Wei, 2014). As innovations constantly develop, corporations are moving from traditional ways of communicating towards new trends such as mobile & social media platforms, cloud based computing, artificial intelligence and big data structures (PwC, 2018.). Therefore, technology is an ever- changing complexity for any corporation to possess but simultaneously a supporting foundation for MNC operating on a global scale. The importance of having modern technology is motivated to increase efficiency in the business operations and improves communication (ibid.). However, technological investments are for most corporations a large, complex and costly decision (Valacich & Schneider, 2017). Not only can one system support one full operation, but also associated costs with purchasing software, licenses, installation and maintenance are heavy. Hence, an up to date technological infrastructure is essential to remain competitive and is a vital part in doing successful business in the 21st century (ibid.).
Daim et al. (2012) argue a common negative experience for members in GVT is technological failure. This could be e.g. delayed or failing audio or video signals. Resulting in group members not capturing the context, causing disruption in communication and thereby creating disturbances between sender and receiver. Failures in virtual communication can result in misunderstandings, limit team communication and overall decreased team productivity (Sallnäs, 2005). Further negative obstacles of practice ICT are decreased human interaction and social isolation. Virtual communication is argued to have a negative impact in which people tend to speak fewer words in virtual contexts e.g. videoconference etc. And people that use instant messages like Lync or Skype or emails also tend to write less words than in spoken face-to-face conversations (ibid.). According to a survey by RW Culture Wizard (2016) 92 % argue face-to-face communication to be the most effective form of communication. In comparison, internal and external social media tools for communication, such as instant messages or email, only score 49 % on average providing an effective output. (
2.3.2(Interpersonal(Relations(in(GVT(
Another aspect of communication challenges for GVT is interpersonal relations. This is referred to the complexity of creating a relationship and establishing collaboration within a GVT (Daim et al., 2012). Interpersonal relations in GVT include differences in group- compositions, individual background and traits which are differences impacting the
! 10! !
creation of team collaboration. Hertel, Geister & Konradt (2005) therefore highlights the importance of being aware of our subjective differences as humans, as it could effect team collaboration and productivity if managed and understood properly in the GVT.
Harzing et al. (2011) claim language differences to be one aspect that tend to complicate and slow down decision-making processes and affect the interpersonal relation with a GVT. Klintmøller and Lauring (2013) describe a common language to be a facilitator when knowledge sharing within GVT, although hard to achieve. The English language is argued to be one of the most frequently and shared corporate languages in most MNCs, in which the linguistic prerequisite of the individuals are a crucial factor to share and comprehend information. The linguistic preferences include aspects of grammar, spelling, and words etc. which all are vital factors when speak, reading and transferring information in a proficient way (ibid.). Communication is required to be clear, effective, complete, fluent and on time to be practiced, which can be complex to achieve if one of the requirements are not fulfilled (Marlow et al., 2018).
In virtual settings, the non-verbal communication including gestures, facial expression and body language etc. is argued to be hard to interpret and capture, compared to face-to- face communication. This can obstruct or result in disruptions of the information and create possible misunderstandings among team members (Wang, 2009). Daim et al. (2012) further explain limited successful communication and misinterpretations could lead to confusion and decreased team performance due to miscommunication among team members.
2.3.3(Trust(in(GVT
Concerns regarding the creation of trust in GVT have increased (Alsharo, Gregg & Ramirez, 2017) as scholars argue efficient communication to be closely linked with trust. Efficient communication is argued to be one core of establish, maintaining and creating trust and team collaboration in virtual settings (Kelly, 2013). Trust is therefore argued to be a vital factor for creating good virtual business operations. Trust is interconnected with creating personal relationships, which is to be improved through continuous interactions between individuals over time (Soetanto, 2012). Trust is therefore an essential factor as it chains the connectivity among team members virtually and is therefore argued to be harder to establish (Zuofa & Ochieng, 2017). Alsharo, Gregg and Ramirez (2017) claim
! 11! !
trust to be crucial for creating and maintaining relationships, supporting teamwork and collaboration. Moreover, trust is described to be a fundamental element in projects and an important factor for team collaboration and successful team performance (Zuofa & Ochieng, 2017; Soetanto, 2012). Batarseh, Daspit and Usher (2017) further argue teams that fail to establish trust are teams unable to harvest the benefits of their business operations. Teams operating in a virtual setting are therefore required to fully trust its team members to successfully perform. Given this importance, establishing trust is argued to be one great challenge for GVT (Marlow, Lacerenza & Salas, 2017).
The importance of face-to-face communication for building trust in GVT is excessive (Alsharo, Gregg & Ramirez, 2017). In virtual communication, dispersed members are unable to observe physical behaviors and cues, which can impact the establishment of trust. The lack of face-to-face communication imply difficulties in achieving
correspondence and the assistance of maintaining relationships (Daim et al.,(2012). This is mainly a response to the virtual and the complexity to assess trustworthiness (Alsharo, Gregg, Ramirez, 2017). Scholars reason teams with lack of trust, are teams that tend to be characterized with more conflicts and inefficiency compared to teams with a high degree of trust (Soetanto, 2012).
In teams characterized by diversity, the opinions about trust are subjective. For instance, trust in some cultures is assumed, while in others, trust is something being earned. Therefore, GVT are required to constantly work with maintaining and establishing trust as it can be lost quickly if managed poorly (RW Culture Wizard, 2016). Moreover, every team is unique and requires a different approach to maintain and establish trust to generate a positive outcome.
2.3.4(Culture(in(GVT(
Culture is a term related to expectations and differences founded in beliefs, core values, rituals, customs etc. all of which aims to give a logical reason and describe our differences as humans (Klintmøller & Lauring, 2013). Since culture is such a wide expression including several aspects, cultural awareness is not to foresee the importance of its influence on group cohesion and collaboration (Hofstede, 2011). Culture is a complex phenomenon to perfectly define in a general and accepted term since it is
subjective (Chapman et al.,( 2008.). However, this study has used Hofstede (2011)
! 12! !
definition of culture: “..The collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or society from those of another” (p.3).
Most GVT operating on a global market includes several cultural boundaries due to the cultural differences among the members in the dispersed teams (Eisenberg & Mattarelli, 2017). Combining people from various parts of the world with dissimilar cultural backgrounds involves complexity in regards to how communication is interpreted and executed. Daim et al. (2012) describe culture to be divided into three sections of cultural differences. Functional differences, describe how individuals perceive motivational factors differently. For instance, individuals coming from diverse cultural backgrounds have divided motivational triggers which can result in complexity within a virtual team as members have a split view on how to function (ibid.). Secondly, organizational differences are challenges impacting on behavior adopted from experience according to the organizational culture as it makes a great impact of the employees’ behavior and values. At last, national differences impact the individuals’ behavior rooted from their own culture. This can be challenging in a GVT context as team members tend to identify themselves in a mutual identity, which could segregate the GVT (ibid.). GVT members feel associated with similar cultures, whilst members from distant cultures are being left out which results in difficulties in establishing a united team culture.
GVT with different cultures have obstacles of fully reaching the expected, or full potential in terms of performance and team-efficiency (Hardin, Fuller & Davison, 2007). Marlow et al. (2018) highlights cultural challenges to be a major constraint for GVT performance. The progress of ICT is argued to simplify the communication among geographically and culturally dispersed teams. (Hardin, Fuller & Davison, 2007). However, challenges related to cultural aspects, describing basic dissimilarities among individuals remains due to our differences as individuals (Klintmøller & Lauring, 2013). GVT members are required to identify cultural aspects, enabling a more open and global connected thinking, not confined to national borders (Eisenberg & Mattarelli, 2017). Zander et al. (2012) describe corporations operating in an international context to be required to take culture into consideration. Chapman et al. (2008) discuss how lack of cultural awareness gives an incomplete understanding, being devastating for cross- cultural team performance in international management (Drogendijk & Zander, 2010).
! 13! !
Members of GVT are therefore required to understand the value and significance of cultural awareness as it has a direct impact on team performance (Eisenberg & Mattarelli, 2017). Lockwood (2015) support by claiming that superior outcome could be achieved when combining qualities with cultural understanding in a GVT setting.
Another challenge is the fallacious assumption of cultural homogeneity within nations (Tung, 2008). In alliance, Signorini et al. (2009) and Kirkman, Lowe and Gibson (2006) argue culture homogeneity to be non-existing, rather to be dynamic and thereby changing over time, indicating a complexity of assuming one existing national culture.
2.3.5 Leadership in GVT Another challenge for GVT is the role of the executed leadership (Daim et al., 2012). Northouse (2013) describes how the leadership attributes have changed the last decades due to globalization and the increased focus of cultural awareness. Hertel, Geister and Konradt (2005) explain leadership to be complicated in GVT as the leader and employees are often operating in disperse locations, explaining the complexity regarding control and coordination of team members. By operating on distance, scholars claim GVT to have a less hierarchal structure, which cause role confusion and team disengagement. The lack of managerial presence in teams could result in a lower degree of motivation, trust and target achievement (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014). Gordon (2017) claim virtual teams face more leadership challenges than local teams. This indicate leaders are required to attain more attention to the virtual team members which challenge the leader to allocate both time and effort in an already complicated and pressured circumstance (ibid.). Another challenge is described to be the lack of information between the leader and team members to result in a negative interaction. Members of GVT could perceive they receive the minimum amount of information, creating tensions and impact the output of team collaboration (ibid.).
Virtual leaders are required to possess a diverse set of skills such as leadership attributes, system and technological skills and conflict management (Valacich & Schneider, 2017). Leadership attributes in GVT are related to leaders’ ability to attain cultural intelligence in an international organization, which describe the leaders’ capability to effectively deal with cultural diverse settings (Eisenberg & Mattarelli, 2017; Lisak & Erez, 2015). Chapman et al. (2008) debate the need for increased understanding of cultural
! 14! !
differences, in which they state “..Cultural differences which are understood, are differences which can be managed” (p.218). RW Culture Wizard (2016) describe leaders are required to possess cultural awareness, having different traits and understand cultural differences within GVT (Northouse, 2013). Leaders in a global team are required to possess chameleon-like characteristics to deal with diversity within teams to understand different individuals (Lisak & Erez, 2015). Transparency and dependability are traits argued to be essential as uncertainty in virtual settings are more present than in a local setting (Lockwood, 2015). Aktas et al. (2015) present leadership traits are affected and formed by social and organizational characteristics, which argue social norms are embedded and influencing effective leadership. Being adoptable to communicate with other cultures and learning about other culture from a position of equality, rather than cultural superiority is crucial (Northouse, 2013).
Eisenberg and Mattarelli (2017) describe cultural intelligent managers to establish collaboration and trust in virtual teams. Leaders and teams could favor the creation of trust by ensuring members to join the business operations and work cohesively towards the same targets, creating a transcultural vision. Meaning, by training communication competences, leaders are enable to implement their vision in diverse workplaces leading to overcome cultural challenges more efficiently (Northouse, 2013). To succeed with a transcultural vision, Zuofa and Ochieng (2017) encourage non-work related interaction to create collaboration and trust in teams. Additionally, this kind of interaction is difficult to execute due to the nature of GVT, yet, prominent for GVT performance (Batarseh, Daspit & Usher, 2017). ( 2.4(Theoretical(Framework&
We highlight a present research gap in alliance with Marlow et al. (2018) to capture the complexity of GVT communication challenges in a virtual setting. We have therefore decided to investigate if the intended framework based on Daim et al. (2012) still are relevant today due to the rapid and dynamic development of ICT the last years. The stressed importance of understand the GVT communication challenges are still important, but undiscovered (Marlow et al., 2018). Batarseh, Daspit and Usher (2017) describe only 18 % of GVT declare successful team performance and the remaining percent represent the GVT not to fulfill their intended targets due to communication failures.
! 15! !
Based on this understanding, we have chosen to visualize the main concepts in figure 1, developed with influence of Daim et al. (2012). The figure illustrates the five main pillars which affect efficient GVT communication. We intend to illustrate the argued GVT reality from literature by constructing a model in three levels.
The first level in the top (Communication challenges in GVT) describes virtual communication in its original context. Meaning, the level illustrates MNCs using communication in GVT without awareness of the communication challenges hindering their business operations. The second level contains the identified parameters by Daim et al. (2012) of; Technology, Interpersonal Relations, Trust, Culture and Leadership, all of which are claimed to impact GVT communication negatively. The third (Efficient GVT Communication) level is the desired stage where an understanding of the mentioned
parameters can be transformed into enablers improving the communication within GVT.
Figure 1. The theoretical framework based on Daim et al. (2012).
! 16! !
3.#Method#
In this section, we present the method chosen for this research study. It is further elaborated and motivated why and how the chosen method was used for this research.
3.1#Research#Design# 3.1.1(Abductive(Approach(
The aim with this study is to investigate what communication challenges a GVT faces when operating in the energy sector. We have chosen an abductive approach to encounter our research aim and research question. We thought the abductive approach was suitable for our study as it is a mix of inductive and deductive research (Patel & Davidsson, 2003). When using the abductive approach, new information can be generated and combined with existing knowledge, in which we could gain a deeper understanding about the existing challenges in GVT communication (Gioia et al., 2012).
3.1.2 Qualitative Research
We found a qualitative approach suitable for our investigation of the communication challenges in GVT. This was motivated because the qualitative approach could increase the understanding of the GVT phenomena based upon our interviewees perception and experience from GVT at the case company. We argue in line with Yin (2003) how qualitative research was suitable for our research as it investigates a comprehensive area to explore a narrative base on a wide-ranging collected material. This approach is used by both scholars and professions from a various discipline to explore and give context to an unveiled area of investigation without utilizing numerical measurement, covering a full scope expressed in words (Cassell & Symon, 2015; Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009. By using a qualitative research approach, we could detect broad dynamic patterns and capturing a context dependent reality, which is revealed with a complete interpretation found at the case company (Pettigrew, 1997).
Denscombe (2010) describes qualitative method to be applicable when dealing with multiple explanations of the perceived reality, in which we found qualitative method to
facilitate our study (Babin & Zikmund, 2016; Crane et al.,(2018). The main objective of our research was to gain a holistic view whilst simultaneously gaining deep and detailed information about the communication challenges in GVT.
! 17! !
By utilizing a qualitative research method, we could go in depth and find true inner meanings of the research topic. 3.1.3(Exploratory(Research(
As the aim of the study propose to bring forward existing challenges of GVT communication, an exploratory research was found appropriate. Bryman and Bell (2011) describe the exploratory research design to be valuable when investigating a phenomenon in a new angle. We found exploratory research to be suitable for our research as it could investigate new observations about GVT communication, enabling us to be flexible in the research progress (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).
! 3.2(Data(Collection(( ( 3.2.1(SemiVstructured(Interviews(
Applying interviews as a research tool is a widely common data collection method when conducting a case study (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). Semi-structured interviews are a sort of interviewing technique, described to be efficient due to its flexibility and capability in disclosing often hidden human and organizational behaviors. We found the approach suitable for our research because we wanted our interviews to result in a “conversation like” meeting where the interviewees could speak openly with the opportunity to develop the topic unconditionally whilst going in depth. The semi- structured interviews gave us the opportunity to ask follow-up questions when the interview questions were understood unclear or elaborations vague. This approach supported us accessing in-depth information, whilst avoiding biased answers by our interviewees (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
In our research, face-to-face interviews were facilitated in all 21 interviews (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009.). We tried to establish a familiar and comfortable environment for our interviewees in both locations, in which we met with the respondents in a conference room at Uniper facilities. We used the case company’s own facilities with private conference rooms to ensure respondents felt safe and protected when elaborating on our questions, contributing to essential and vital data. We made effort to ensure comfort with our presence by having a short introduction about ourselves, the research and the non-disclosure agreement to promote and guarantee our intentions with the research. We made sure to clearly state we were open for potential questions or
! 18! !
clarifications before, during and after the interviews. This to ensure the interviewees full confidence. This is argued to impact the interviewees willingness to disclose knowledge and experience because of trust being established (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).
We decided to travel to two destinations to conduct our empirical data for this study. First, we travelled to Malmö, Sweden to visit the Swedish subsidiary of Uniper and conduct face-to-face with the interviewees. In Malmö, we conducted 9 interviews with the employees at the procurement division. Secondly, we travelled to Düsseldorf, Germany to visit the procurement division working at the Uniper HQ. In Düsseldorf, we conducted another 12 interviews. In total, we held 21 face-to-face interviews.
The interviews in this study was conducted in both Swedish and English language. We motivate using both languages to gain confidence from the interviewees whilst avoiding limited answers if linguistic problems would create obstacles. The interviews in Sweden were held in Swedish, where we argue the native tongue of the respondent to be used which increase understanding and comfort between us and the interviewees (Saunders, Thornhill & Lewis, 2009). We translated all Swedish interviews into English to use it for our empirical analysis. Further, all interviews held in Düsseldorf were conducted in English to develop a shared consent between us and the interviewees due to the multiple nationalities represented at the HQ. Bryman and Bell (2011) describe interviews to be a time-consuming process because its intention is to explore and gain information of a given context. Each of our interviews in this research were approximately 60 minutes, which is argued to be an appropriate length for gaining a broad understanding (Jacobsen, 2002). In contrary, conducting shorter interviews wouldn’t have provided the required depth, causing problem for the research authenticity and trustworthiness. All 21 semi- structured interview questions were answered within the given time-scope and enabled the interviewees to give a full elaboration about each topic, leaving room for potential clarifications and elaborations by both parties involved.
3.2.2(Observations(
Observations were conducted during the data collection when we had the possibility to participate in virtual meetings and other social contexts with several participants at both Uniper facilities. The observations gave us first-hand information, enabling us to witness the events with our own eyes and ears. This enabled us to extend our interpretations of
! 19! !
communication challenges in a GVT. We motivate our participation during the observations to be suitable for applying a qualitative research (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Collecting data by being part of observations helped us understood the dynamic GVT setting whilst providing us with a deeper understanding (Denscombe, 2010).
Using participant observations as a data collection tool enabled us as authors to observe same events at the same time. However, if we comprehended the same things are an aspect required to taken into consideration. Background and competence is argued to affect the comprehension due to our selective recall as researchers and individuals (Denscombe, 2010). Furthermore, we took the relevant and precise indicators into consideration, preserving the naturalness of the setting. Meaning, we put effort directly into the indicators related to GVT communication, having no ambiguity into the irrelevant indicators during the observation. Our observations enabled us to go in depth, disguising potential hidden traits by the members participating in the events. Factors related to e.g. culture is argued to be hard to detect, in which observations can reveal the “truth” of such factors (Denscombe, 2010). The conducted observations provided us to extend the empirical findings and our existing knowledge of GVT communication.
3.2.3(Single(Case(Study(
We used a single case study approach to gain detailed information and provide understanding to describe GVT communication (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). Creswell (2007) presents a case study as a research strategy primary focus on going in depth to investigate and intensively understand the know-how of a specific case or objective (Dyer & Wilkins, 1991; Eisenhardt, 1989). Babin and Zikmund (2016) explain; ”..Case studies provide a primary advantage in that a researcher can study an entire organization or entity in depth with meticulous attention to detail” (p. 120).
Doh (2015) describes importance of going in depth when investigating an organization, location or person, in which we have selected the case company Uniper for our research. By disclosing the in-depth context of GVT from its primary source, the intended aim of the study was supported. We selected Uniper as case company to provide a narrative of information and further applying theoretical grounds in a real context environment. At Uniper we could gain unique insights of their GVT operations. With this reasoning, we motivate a single case study approach to be suitable for encountering the aim for this
! 20! !
research (Flyvbjerg, 2003; Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). However, Langley (2009) discuss the potential risks of utilizing a single case study to be negative in terms of generalizability of the findings on a larger scale. Our research intends to bring generalizable findings to academia and theory and therefore are findings not relevant if removed from original context (Eisenhardt, 1989; Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).
To fully understand the multiple challenges of GVT communication, a single case study approach was conducted. This enabled us to go in depth, which is argued to be preferable to gain sufficient and extensive information. In comparison to a multiple case study approach in which we would only have scratched the surface of several corporations.
3.2.4(Selection(of(Respondents(
The sample frame is argued to be small when utilizing a qualitative and exploratory study, yet more extensive in terms of depth (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). The need of cover a large research scope while conducting qualitative research is seen to be a “less-is-more” concept focusing on gaining deeper knowledge. Our research conducted 21 face-to-face interviews with employees at Uniper. We would like to highlight managerial and non-managerial employees were represented in the sample and we motivate the distribution of our interviewees to consist of a wide range of individuals. The contribution interviewing a diverse group of people could bring an objective perspective to our research and findings.
Our sample consists of 7 females and 14 male interviewees. All representing a wide spread of nationalities including Sweden, Germany, India, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. The respondents at the case company are represented in multiple GVT, especially respondents holding management positions at the HQ. An example of held positions by respondents: Vice President, Procurement Officer, Functional Head of Procurement, Head of Corporate Services, Procurement Director, Head of Claim Management, Team Leader and Category Manager etc. all adding to extensive information for this research.
In our study, we selected a non-probability judgment sample at Uniper. This was experienced employees that helped our research by sharing high quality information (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010; Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). Utilizing this sample is debated to be preferable in a case study, focusing on a smaller sample, with a selected
! 21! !
case or objective to provide the researcher with deep information and insights with potential to be compared with existing theory.
Pre-knowledge within the field of investigation is key to generalize the findings from the interviewees (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). To gain access to individuals with the correct pre-knowledge within GVT communication, a constructive dialogue with Uniper helped us find the proper interviewees for the research. It was of great importance the interviewees had correct prerequisites of GVT experience to answer our interview questions and contribute to our research. Table 1 is a summary of participants contributing to this research, the list is not in chronological order to ensure anonymity.
Table 1. Respondent Summary.
Interviewees Division Type Location Duration Date
Respondent 1 Subsidiary In person Malmö 61 min 2018-04-09 Respondent 2 Subsidiary In person Malmö 65 min 2018-04-09 Respondent 3 Subsidiary In person Malmö 61 min 2018-04-09 Respondent 4 Subsidiary In person Malmö 58 min 2018-04-09 Respondent 5 Subsidiary In person Malmö 60 min 2018-04-09 Respondent 6 Subsidiary In person Malmö 59 min 2018-04-10 Respondent 7 Subsidiary In person Malmö 66 min 2018-04-10 Respondent 8 Subsidiary In person Malmö 53 min 2018-04-10 Respondent 9 Subsidiary In person Malmö 56 min 2018-04-10 Respondent 10 HQ In person Düsseldorf 53 min 2018-04-17 Respondent 11 HQ In person Düsseldorf 61 min 2018-04-17 Respondent 12 HQ In person Düsseldorf 49 min 2018-04-17 Respondent 13 HQ In person Düsseldorf 43 min 2018-04-17 Respondent 14 HQ In person Düsseldorf 47 min 2018-04-17 Respondent 15 HQ In person Düsseldorf 62 min 2018-04-18 Respondent 16 HQ In person Düsseldorf 75 min 2018-04-18 Respondent 17 HQ In person Düsseldorf 69 min 2018-04-18 Respondent 18 HQ In person Düsseldorf 50 min 2018-04-18 Respondent 19 HQ In person Düsseldorf 58 min 2018-04-18 Respondent 20 HQ In person Düsseldorf 53 min 2018-04-18 Respondent 21 HQ In person Düsseldorf 45 min 2018-04-18
3.2.5(Interview(Guide(
Our interview guide (See Appendix 1) was constructed in line with our research background and problem. The aim with the interview guide was to provide interviewees at Uniper with an introduction to our research and a presentation of ourselves to become
! 22! !
more personally connected with the interviewees. Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) describe an interview guide important to be provided to interviewees because it introduces the research topic. Our interview guide presented the phenomena of GVT and aimed to be formulated in a clear and concise way so reader easily could understand what our research contained whilst minimizing misunderstandings and potential confusion when respondents arrived to the interviews.
Yin (2003) elaborate a badly constructed interview guide could create biased responses and thereby create questionable empirical data. However, as we have chosen not to disclose the interview questions in advance but instead introducing the research topic generally, biased responses could be avoided and reduced (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
Additionally, our research intends to capture the reality of GVT communication challenges. To achieve this, we have created six subsections for the interview questions (See appendix 2) to create a clear structure. The first part, questions 1-5 included a general approach, covering questions to get a brief overview about the interviewee and their background from GVT (Intentionally not presented in below table). The second part, questions 6-9, disclosed the theoretical background how technology affect GVT communication. The third part, questions 10-12 described how interpersonal relationships are a contributing factor in how teams facilitate collaboration. The fourth part, questions 13-15 disclosed how trust impacts communication in GVT. The fifth part, questions 16-18 are related to the cultural aspects. Lastly, the sixth part questions 19-21 described leadership and its´ impact on GVT communication. Table 2. demonstrate the theoretical concepts and underlying reasoning related to our interview questions.
Table 2. Operationalization of theoretical framework.
Theme Description Questions References
Technology The importance, challenges 6-9 E.g. Daim et al (2012), Popa, Thursamy & Wei (2017), Sallnäs (2005), Valacich & and possibilities of ICT in GVT. Schneider (2017),
Interpersonal How is relationships established 10-12 E.g. Harzing et al (2011), Hertel, Geister & Konradt, (2005), Klintmøller & Lauring, Relationship and what factors challenge GVT (2012), Wang (2009), Zuofa & Ochieng (2017) collaboration.
! 23! !
Trust What impact creation of trust has 13-15 E.g. Alsharo, Gregg & Ramirez, (2017), Batarseh, Daspit & Usher (2017), Castellano, on GVT and how it affects Davidson & Khelladi (2016), Marlow, performance. Lacerenza & Salas (2017), Soetanto, (2012)
Culture Cultural differences revealed 16-18 E.g. Chapman et al (2008), Drogendijk & Zander (2010), Eisenberg & Mattarelli, (2017), and its impact on GVT operations. Marlow et al (2018), Signorini et al (2009, Tung (2008), Zander et al (2012)
Leadership How the executed leadership 19-21 E.g. Aktas et al (2015), Hertel, Geister & Konradt, (2005), Lisak & Erez (2015), impact collaboration and what Lockwood, (2015), Maduka et al (2018), Zuofa traits are considered suitable in & Ochieng (2017), a GVT setting. ( 3.2.6(Data(Processing((
We decided to use audio recordings to capture full scope of the interviews. This to ensure a cohesive interpretation (Jacobsen, 2002).. Audio recordings were only applied if the interviewees gave their consent and felt comfortable, which all did. By using audio- recording, we minimized the risks of losing valuable information while still ensuring the right information was captured, allowing us to fully concentrate on listening to the interviewees (Ibid.). Audio recordings enabled us to repeatedly listen to the interviews while helping us capture formulations and quotations not interpreted at a first glance (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). When conducting audio recordings, it is importance to select a location free from will distractions. Distractions could create obscurity for the interviewees and is therefore important to be avoided (Jacobsen, 2002). Therefore, we motivated conducting all interviews in conference rooms separated from noisier and more trafficked areas of the office which enabled us to capture the full scope, including verbal and non-verbal cues.
We have conducted our data processing and analysis with influence of Gioia et al. (2012) and Bryman (2012). First, we acknowledged categories in line with theoretical framework to generate a comprehensive overview of primary data. This was in line with the Thematic analysis approach by Bryman (2012). An example of the Thematic analysis is presented below in table 3. (For full version, See appendix 3). Secondly, we identified similarities and dissimilarities from the primary data (HQ vs Subsidiary) and detected patterns between our empirical findings and existing theory. This was made through
! 24! !
transcribing the information which helped us to understand full context. The transcribed material was later classified into categories to capture the returning findings. When this was executed, our analysis was more practicable and empirical data more easy to interpret. To ensure a cohesive interpretation of the interviews, the two of us were present in all interview sections (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). Finally, the empirical findings were analyzed and reviewed multiple times, both separate and in pairs to ensure cohesiveness, enabling us to draw conclusions from primary data. In addition, by being in pairs, we could compare data to see if new findings were generated or corresponded with previous literature (Bryman, 2012).
Table 3. Example of Thematic Analysis.
Technology: Interpersonal Trust: Culture: Leadership: Relations:
“You feel forgotten “Shorter “Distance has a “The Swedish “The Germans might and sometimes you conversations in negative factor on leadership is very feel that they have the need to remind emails or skype, creation of trust, “open” and I can talk power since they are people that you are than in face-to-face but time ease the to my seniors the HQ, but its not present. However, meetings” establishment of whenever, about outspoken, they don’t this leads to I do trust” anything and ask, just do” not communicate as “Keeping management in much as I would if I motivation is hard “Trust is created Sweden is a part of “Having a manager at were present, you while being a part when competence is “us”, then going over distance, you always don’t want to of a virtual meeting, showed” seas.” have to prove yourself interrupt.” phone interviews and what you do every are even harder” “Lack of linguistic “Cultural clashes are day, but meeting is “Its easy to mute knowledge have a not handled in a very totally different and the meeting and do “You can’t replace negative impact on large extent. Some you reach another something else face-to-face trust” people believes that understanding” whilst participating meetings trough western Europe are on a phone virtual means” “We continuously the same, however, “The functional conference. I need to work on our we are different” organization is hard, usually sit and work “ At first relationship, how is my boss able to while meetings go collaboration creating a better “Non-official cues know what i´m doing in along” should be understanding of and reading between my day-to-day work established trough how our different the lines are harder while not being co- face-to-face cultures work” in virtual setting” located” meetings”
3.3(Ethical(Considerations( 3.3.1(NonVDisclosure(Agreement(
Ethical concerns in business and management research is fundamental and great concern when conducting research (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Concerns of how people and
! 25! !
information is treated are essential activities to take into consideration, containing four crucial principles to uphold: Harm, Information consent, Privacy and Deception (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.156). Further, to protect the individuals and the case company Uniper, we would like to stress a non-disclosure agreement was signed before the data collection began between the two parties. The agreement involves all four aspects, stating no company secrets or confidential information will or should be disclosed without the participants, nor the consent of Uniper. Finally, we would like to stress all interviews at Uniper were voluntarily conducted and were treated with the sincerest respect and full confidentiality.
3.3.2(Trustworthiness(and(Authenticity(
In our research, we have applied the Bryman and Bell (2011) evaluation criteria’s suitable for qualitative research. The requirements are based upon the concepts of authenticity and trustworthiness. Authenticity describe if the research findings can be considered to represent the perception of multiple interviewees within the observed research scope. To ensure this, questions given to the interviewees has followed the same structure in both Düsseldorf, Germany and Malmö, Sweden. We motivated asking same questions to not foresee details or leave room for answers measuring different objectives.
Trustworthiness can be divided into four categories: Credibility, Transferability, Dependability and Conformability (Bryman & Bell, 2011; Denscombe, 2010). Credibility is linked to the internal validity, describing the correlation with the theory and the researchers’ observations (Bryman & Bell, 2011). In our research, we strived for good
practice whilst capturing the correct view of the GVT environment at Uniper (Gioia et al.,( 2012). Transferability explains what degree the empirical findings are applicable to other research (Bryman & Bell, 2011). We raise awareness about how the choice of data collection (interviews, observations etc.) affect the findings depending on the research design which can create possibilities for in depth results although the sample size is conducted with a single case approach. Dependability describe the research findings to be consistent and able to be replicated coming up with equal findings (ibid.). Principally, our research should be evaluated upon the basis of reputable procedures and reasonable decisions to fulfill the criteria’s of trustworthiness. Conformability describe the findings should be a result of the interviews and observations, not by us as authors (ibid.).
! 26! !
Our study aimed to capture the perceived reality of the interviewees without the potential influence or encouragement becoming biased. Qualitative findings are argued to be a product of a process of interpretation, in which we were constantly required to raise criticism towards our research process and its findings over time (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
On above reasoning, we aimed to be objective towards the study itself to provide transparent findings from the research at the case company and thereby bring forward the reality and by that fulfilling the above-mentioned criteria for a reliable research.
(
(
(
! 27! !
4.(Empirical(Findings(and(Analysis((
This chapter presents the study’s empirical findings based on the data collected from the case company. This section is in line with the proposed research model and we will end each subsection with an analysis of our empirical findings.
4.1 GVT at Uniper
MNCs are required to be globally dispersed in order to facilitate their business operations. Running global activities requires extensive and timely communication. One key question facing us is: How is virtual communication practiced at Uniper? Our empirical data, taken from respondents at both the HQ and its subsidiary, shows that Uniper employees are dependent on technology which works across borders to facilitate virtual communication across their multiple business operations, remain competitive and function worldwide;
Without technology, we wouldn’t be able to function. (Respondent 1, Subsidiary).
The case company makes use of GVTs in multiple sceneries. All interviewees were part of at least one GVT, in collaboration with team members dispersed across one or multiple countries. Most GVTs contained 4-8 people and sometimes more, often including multiple nationalities. Most interviewees were working in several temporary project groups and teams involved in different projects. The number of temporary teams an individual is involved in depends on their role and seniority. Lower ranked individuals have more operational tasks to fulfill on a daily basis, whilst managers have a greater number of strategic duties.
4.2 Technology in GVT
The case company described GVTs as a complex phenomenon which creates multiple challenges. The case company communicates through technological solutions, systems and tools, sending and receiving information through its global business operations and GVT. However, employees reported that technological failings occurred on a daily basis, and did not live up to the employees’ expectations. The empirical findings describe a cohesive perception of the technological challenges and no major differences were found between the accounts of the two case company units. Based on
! 28! !
the respondents' perception, the functionality of the technology was considered to be flawed;
The technology doesn’t work that good. However, the desired connection has been aimed but not accomplished. We have the right prerequisites but still don’t manage it to be successful. (Respondent 17, HQ).
Slow connection, everything is running slow. (Respondent 5, Subsidiary)
Interviewees described how meetings were often disrupted, sometimes even up to three times per meeting, putting crucial discussions on hold for delays of up to ten to fifteen minutes. Technical failures and breakdowns are problematic when operating in a GVT, because GVTs rely heavily on a functional IT infrastructure, and setbacks cause delays in daily operations; Technical issues usually happen at least once, but sometimes two or three times per meeting. (Respondent 2, Subsidiary).
It is very common 10-15 minutes late due to technological problems (Respondent 12, HQ)
Technical breakdowns created frustration, as well as making it difficult for meeting participants to understand and interpret the context of the meeting, leading to misunderstandings and limiting interactions between the team members;
You are relying on the technology when operating in a virtual setting. However, at the end of the day, if the technology fails to deliver, you face issues. (Respondent 10, HQ).
Technological failures were evident during our own observations and occurred several times in our presence. During the observations, technical failures caused delays, frustration and caused difficulty in understanding and following the full content of the GVT meetings. Another technological challenge was related to the usage of phone conferences. Employees expressed that phone conferences limit their comprehension of meetings due to the difficulties evoked by only being able to hear the other meeting participants, without seeing them. Hence, non-verbal expressions and body language are effectively absent from phone conferences, leading to difficulties in interpreting meaning correctly. In addition, it was argued that phone conferences create an excluding environment for participants who are not locally present at the meeting.
! 29! !
Several respondents described how they often felt forgotten about, losing focus and even doing non-related tasks during meetings; It’s easy to mute the meeting and do something else whilst participating on a phone conference. I usually sit and work while meetings go along. (Respondent 9, Subsidiary).
Additionally, poor video and audio quality was presented as a common problem, negatively impacting the interactions between the team members participating in the meeting; In today's meeting, me and my boss, plus four other people had a meeting and I could only hear my boss. Meanwhile, I was just waiting since the audio quality was so bad and the only thing I was focusing on was what I say next, not the actual content of the meeting. (Respondent 6, Subsidiary).
4.2.1(Analysis(of(Technology(in(GVT( The empirical findings indicate technology is a dominant communication challenge in GVT. Valacich and Schneider (2017) discuss how GVTs are dependent on a functioning and reliable IT-infrastructure and how without functioning technology, GVTs will have a hard time being successful in global operations. MNCs are therefore required to have a secure and reliable technological infrastructure (PwC, 2018). Despite today’s development of sufficient tools to assist with communication, issues at the case company remain. Our empirical findings confirmed that technological issues were very much present in daily operations of GVTs in the case company (Daim et al., 2012; Kankanhalli, Tan & Wei, 2014). This was confirmed by the interviewees, who explained how the case company’s technology frequently failed due to reoccurring faults. Technological challenges will continue to limit GVT operations at the case company (Maduka et al., 2018), decreasing overall team performance and the effectiveness of business operations (Sallnäs, 2005).
Our findings indicate that despite technological progression in the last decade (PwC, 2018) communication challenges remain and need to be addressed. If no sufficient technological solution is created, employees will not be able to reach their full potential while operating virtually (Valacich & Schneider, 2017). Ultimately, it is necessary to create a more stable working atmosphere, avoiding technological issues affecting business operations negatively (McKinsey, 2016).
! 30! !
The failing functionality of the current IT-infrastructure was the most recurring complaint with regard to technology and nearly all interviewees agreed that it had a negative impact on daily GVT operations. Several respondents described how these frequent technological setbacks led them to question the efficiency of using current ICT tools, indicating a lack of confidence in the technological set up at the case company.
Although GVT is an efficient way for MNCs to connect employees in dispersed locations (Zuofa & Ochieng, 2017), the case company needs to allocate more resources towards dealing with this prominent challenge. It is an extensive, costly and complex decision (Valacich & Schneider, 2017), but it will provide employees with the technological solutions needed to carry out their work to a high standard.
4.3 Interpersonal Relations in GVT
Having an initial face-to-face meeting was highlighted by the majority of respondents from both units as a crucial factor for establishing collaboration in GVTs. The respondents described how before starting a working relationship in a virtual context, holding a personal meeting where team members met face-to-face and got to know each other was of crucial importance in supporting the interpersonal relations within a GVT;
First and most important, meeting face-to-face and create a relationship through interaction. (Respondent 1, Subsidiary).
At first, collaboration should be established through a face-to- face meeting (Respondent 3, Subsidiary).
The interviewees at both the HQ and the subsidiary expressed language skills to be a crucial factor when working in an international team. Lack of language skills was claimed to limit both the transparency and the flow of information between the two units. The respondents mentioned that this created dissatisfaction within the subsidiary unit. This was not agreed upon at the HQ and the topic was not discussed in detail. The subsidiary further expressed that many of the people working at the HQ lacked sufficient language skills, even to the degree where their level of English prevented successful communication:
People at the HQ are in general quite bad in English and especially the people from the south part of Europe. Sometimes
! 31! !
the HQ even sends out PowerPoint slides in German. (Respondent 3, Subsidiary).
We should have a higher focus on developing the language skills among employees, I believe by working in an international organization, we should possess the proper English qualities so we can easily communicate with each other. (Respondent 7, Subsidiary).
For instance, the subsidiary respondents claimed that HQ employees often possessed limited linguistic skills, and therefore were often quiet and reserved during virtual meetings. Instead of voicing their opinions during the meetings, some employees expressed their opinions afterwards e.g. via email or a phone call. However, in contrast, the findings at the HQ were not in line with the views of the subsidiary. This was further confirmed by our observations at the HQ, where all interviewees possessed sufficient linguistic skills;
The people that are not good in English tend to be quiet due to their own uncertainty. (Respondent 8, Subsidiary).
All Germans speak sufficient English I would say; language has a very limited impact on our GVT operations. (Respondent 10, HQ).
4.3.1(Analysis(of(Interpersonal(Relations(in(GVT(
Eisenberg and Mattarelli (2017) argue our differences as humans impact the creation of collaboration, and hence impact our interpersonal relations. The majority of our respondents argued getting to know your team members face-to-face also eased internal communication, which is supported by Geister and Konradt (2005), who demonstrate that being aware of our differences as individuals could improve team efficiency in virtual settings. Both units emphasized the importance of establishing collaboration with colleagues since our differences that could than be though, could be understood (Eisenberg and Mattarelli, 2017).
As a GVT is geographically dispersed by nature (Wildman & Griffin, 2015) respondents from both units mentioned complications regarding identifying individual differences and personalities. These concerns echo previous studies which argue dissimilarities between individuals can impact interpretation of the communicated content (Eisenberg & Mattarelli, 2017). Failing to reach a common understanding within a group can result in poor team performance and lack of target achievement (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005). This view was shared among the interviewees at the subsidiary, who hesitated to
! 32! !
contact distant colleagues because they did not want to disturb or intrude on colleagues at the HQ.
Some employees from the subsidiary mentioned that miscommunication as a consequence of operating virtually with distant members could lead to stress and anxiety, which Daim et al. (2012) suggest is a consequence of poor virtual communication. The empirical findings confirm, supported by the literature, how employees dealing with anxiety and emotional stress resulting from GVT participation tend to prioritize local tasks over tasks that originate from the virtual setting. Ultimately, this leads to reduced collaboration and a lack of team efficiency, leading people to fall behind on important tasks. However, this conflict with Zuofa and Ochieng (2017) arguing teams to increase efficiency and productivity working in teams without proximity as the empirical findings indicated the opposite (Castellano, Davidsson & Khelladi, 2016).
Marlow et al. (2018) claim virtual communication needs to be clear, effective, complete, fluent and timely, just as during face-to-face conversations. These parameters are very hard to fulfill in a virtual context when language skills, expertise, experience and technology are insufficient. However, if virtual communication is managed properly, digital information processes could increase team productivity (McKinsey, 2016). Hence, if the communication have difficulties fulfilling communication enabled by ICT, the full context can be hard to interpret due to technological limitations. This indicates that the case company will suffer from difficulties in establishing collaboration in GVTs as efficient communication can be hard to accomplish due to the virtual setting in combination with technical breakdowns
Limited language skills at the case company were argued to cause challenges for virtual communication as the lack of a common language reduced efficiency and hindered collaboration. This is in line with Harzing et al. (2011), who argue linguistic problems slow down processes and decision-making. The subsidiary argued communication challenges related to language occurred due to employees at the HQ having limited linguistic skills, who therefore tended to be quieter during meetings. Sallnäs (2005) stresses people who lack strong language skills prefer to communicate via email or instant messages, rather than face-to-face.
! 33! !
Interestingly, respondents from the HQ neglected the impact of language when discussing GVT collaboration, in contrast to previous studies which argue a common language is essential when sharing knowledge in GVTs (Klintmoller & Lauring, 2013). The HQ interviewees believed that all employees possessed sufficient English skills to communicate fully with their GVT members. In contrast, the subsidiary perceived the English skills of the HQ as incomplete. One explanation of why HQ perceived language skills as being complete while the subsidiary thought the opposite; could potentially be related to the case company’s hierarchical structure. This indicates that the HQ speaks proficient English, however, we argue the HQ perceive the degree of language skills as complete as the interaction they have with the employees around the organization has reached a certain minimum level within the hierarchy. In contrast, the subsidiary might perceive incomplete language skills to be noticeable as the procurement department might interact with employees at a lower level in organizations, leading to collaboration with employees possessing less English expertise.
4.4 Trust in GVT
It was described that the case company had both similar and differing perceptions regarding the importance of trust in GVTs. However, a mutual understanding described the challenge of establishing trust without being co-located. The respondents highlighted the importance of having an initial face-to-face meeting to establish trust within a GVT;
I would say the first step establishing trust in a virtual setting is going the distance and meet face-to-face. (Respondent 4, Subsidiary).
If I have met a colleague in real life, shaken their hand and introduced I´m definitely more available and cooperative towards that person than if we met. (Respondent 4, Subsidiary).
The interviewees perceived the virtual setting and the GVT natural structure of being geographically dispersed as a significant obstacle to create trust. Both units agreed that establishing trust in a virtual setting takes more time and is more complex compared to establishing trust among a co-located team. However, due to frequent communication and conducting meetings face-to-face, the respondents claimed that trust and commitment between GVT members increased over time;
Distance has a negative factor on creation of trust, but time ease the establishment of trust. (Respondent 6, Subsidiary).
! 34! !
Trust increases if communication is frequent (Respondent 14, HQ).
A split perception occurred between the two units regarding the correlation between trust and performance. The majority of the interviewees at the subsidiary argued that a GVT needs to establish trust before it can perform successfully as a team. The subsidiary interviewees considered trust to be an important pillar in the success of a team;
I believe people and teams with a high degree of trust, are teams able to perform. Without trust, we wouldn't be able to succeed with our virtual operations. (Respondent 2, Subsidiary).
In contrary, our findings from the HQ describe the correlation between trust and performance differently. The majority of respondents at HQ thought trust relied upon individual performance, and not the other way around, as described by the subsidiary. Many interviewees at the HQ considered trust as something you have to earn, rather than be given. Therefore, understanding the importance of performance is crucial according to the respondents at the HQ. By being dependable, showing commitment and delivering good results, trust can be earned;
I believe commitment, dependability and performance impact if trust is established or not. It is easier to gain trust if I know that the person always keeps their word, putting in the effort needed. (Respondent 12, HQ).
Trust is created when competence is showed (Respondent 18, HQ).
Performance creates trust (Respondent 19, HQ).
Another finding described by the subsidiary was the importance of small talk. Small talk denotes the conversations which go beyond the traditional business context and enable people to get to know each other on a more personal level. This was argued as a crucial factor in creating trust. Without a connection on a private level, it was argued, professional teamwork would suffer; I perceive the small talk before and after the meetings are of great importance for developing trust. However, I'm not sure if the small talk in our international meetings are appreciated, I actually don't think that the people in Germany [HQ] care about our weather here in Sweden. (Respondent 6, Subsidiary).
I perceive the small-talk before and after (the meetings) are of great importance for developing trust (Respondent 4, Subsidiary).
This belief in the importance of small talk was not shared by HQ. Instead, respondents at HQ argued that a personal bond between GVT members is not essential to performing as an effective team; rather it is individual performance that creates trust. Subsidiary
! 35! !
employees saw colleagues at the HQ as impersonal and absent. The respondents at the subsidiary described that virtual meetings with HQ often skipped small talk and went straight to business.
4.4.1(Analysis(of(Trust(in(a(GVT(( ( ( Marlow, Lacerenza and Salas (2017) claim that trust is one of the most important things for GVT members to establish in the process of team creation (Soetanto, 2012). We found that importance given to trust in GVTs was divided between the HQ and the subsidiary. Kelly (2013) claims that trust and efficient communication are closely linked. When trust is established, uncertainties between individuals are reduced, thus improving collaboration. This is further supported by Soetanto (2012), who argues that trust is a key pillar of successful team collaboration. Hence, this split view of how trust is established
could be founded in the arguments Daim et al.,( (2012) present to which the HQ do not want to expose themselves with unnecessary vulnerability and risks, having good performance rather than the opposite. This is further supported by Zuofa and Ochieng (2017), who state that being in a team means relying on team members to perform. Challenges which arise from differing valuations of trust within a team can arguably have devastating effects (Batarseh, Daspit & Usher, 2017). Teams which fail to establish trust are characterized by more conflicts, and increased uncertainty and inefficiency compared to teams with established trust (Alsharo, Gregg & Ramirez, 2017).
Zuofa and Ochieng (2017) find that trust is particularly hard to achieve when members are geographically dispersed, such as when operating in a GVT. As with collaboration, most respondents argued that it is easier to establish trust through an initial face-to-face meeting. It is widely held that trust within GVTs increases and grows over time (Soetanto, 2012) and is therefore crucial for creating and maintaining a supportive team (Alsharo, Gregg & Ramirez, 2017).
Our observations from the interviews indicate that employees with experience of working in a GVT setting find it easier to establish trust in GVTs. In comparison, team members who have not previously worked in a GVT have a harder time adapting to a virtual setting. Having experience from a previous GVT could improve virtual relationships, as the individual will already have experience of virtual business contexts. However,
! 36! !
employees with less experience of GVTs can find it harder to establish trust. Soetanto (2012) claims that trust improves over time through interactions and the member’s own experience. This indicates that trust is something that evolves gradually; therefore establishing trust can take different amounts of time for different employees. The case company needs to be more aware that trust is subjective, therefore, an on-going awareness how GVT members interpret the creation trust differently upon individual background and experience are required to acknowledge (ibid.).
4.5 Culture in GVT
A split view of how cultural differences were perceived was found at the case company. Both units highlighted that cultural dissimilarities improve overall business operations, but can also create multiple challenges for teams operating in a GVT setting;
Cultural clashes are not handled in a very large extent. Some people believes that western Europe are all the same, but it isn’t fair, we are very different (Respondent 8, Subsidiary).
The awareness of individual differences was seen to be essential by most interviewees as something essential. The importance of acknowledging cultural differences is crucial in a GVT setting and the majority agreed on the importance of cultural awareness in global organizations due to their cross-border activities. Both units addressed the impact of cultural differences on collaboration and how individuals interpret and comprehend things differently. Several respondents further claimed that cultural differences were one of the hardest challenges to overcome when working in a GVT. However, understanding different cultures and being cultural aware is a requirement when working in a culturally dispersed team;
I would say cultural awareness is of crucial importance. You can’t expect people behave, just like you behave. (Respondent 19, HQ).
First, you need to be aware of there are cultural differences. Saying we are all similar based on we are all from Europe, that’s just bizarre. (Respondent 10, HQ).
Key is to know cultural differences exist; there are differences and they need to be raised awareness to. Not pushing the limit on the cultural difference but still being street smart in regards to other cultures (Respondent 8, Subsidiary).
! 37! !
Respondents further stressed that assuming different individuals will act in a particular way because they originate from a particular nationality or culture could be devastating in an international business context;
Making assumptions makes an ass of you. (Respondent 7, Subsidiary).
Biggest mistake you can do is to ignore cultural differences (Respondent 4, HQ).
One cultural challenge expressed by the subsidiary employees was associated with a stricter, more formal and top-down organizational hierarchy present at the HQ. The subsidiary employees expressed that there were often communication challenges related to the hierarchical structure, creating a tense atmosphere due to the hierarchical distance between the subsidiary and the HQ;
We have had multiple ideas for improving business operations but due to a hierarchal distance to management, these ideas have historically remained unsaid. (Respondent 3, Subsidiary).
In contrast to the HQ business culture, the subsidiary unit maintains an open and transparent business atmosphere between employees and management. Subsidiary employees emphasized that they were able to have an open and relaxed relationship to
local management;
The Swedish leadership is very open and I feel that I can talk to my seniors about anything and management is a part of us, compared to overseas. (Respondent 8, Subsidiary).
4.5.1(Analysis(of(Culture(in(GVT( Klintmøller and Lauring (2013) describe how culture impacts the human mind, creating a logical, but subjective reasoning behind our thoughts and behavior. This means that individuals see and understand things differently based on their cultural heritage. By operating in a group or team with team members coming from different countries and cultures, being culturally aware is crucial to success (Eisenberg & Mattarelli, 2017). Lockwood (2015) describes how diversity is a crucial asset for global corporations hoping to succeed internationally. The majority of our respondents argued they were culturally aware and were open-minded towards differences in individuals’ behavior, and to how individuals comprehend things differently. The majority of both units indicated that employees understood the value of working in a
! 38! !
diverse group, even though doing so often presents challenges, which could sometimes create barriers between the two units. The subsidiary unit found that these barriers chiefly resulted from the hierarchical structure of the HQ. This was not raised as an issue by HQ employees, in which a conflict of interest was something described between the two units.
One consequence of ignoring cultural differences is that GVTs are characterized by conflicts and pressure, resulting in reduced collaboration (Tung, 2008). The empirical findings partly support this statement, described increased distance between HQ and subsidiary employees to create tensions, reducing collaboration between the two units. However, this view was not shared by the HQ employees but confirmed by our own observations at the HQ. The observations at the HQ illustrated a typical top down organization characterized by a stricter and formal atmosphere in comparison to our observations at the subsidiary unit, characterized by openness and transparency.
Cultural differences negatively impacted the two units and their communication, as respondents from both HQ and the subsidiary found that it was difficult to reach a common understanding, and often had to rely on reading between the lines. Moreover, it was particularly hard to reach a shared understanding when employees interpreted content differently due to their differences as individuals, and their different cultural heritages (Wang, 2009). Based on our interviews, it is clear that the subsidiary employees felt that cultural differences had a greater impact on their operations than HQ employees did. One explanation of this could be that the majority of interviewed respondents at the HQ were in management positions with similar organizational tasks and priorities, and worked with diverse people all the time. By being part of a co- located team within a certain level in the hierarchy, functional and organizational differences could be reduced due to similarities in seniority and profession (Daim et al., 2012). Our findings and literature are in line, indicating and supporting the importance of giving cultural differences careful attention. Cultural differences that are known, are cultural differences that can be handled (Chapman et al., 2008).
4.6 Leadership in GVT
Employees at both units highlighted that the geographical distance between global colleagues and managers was challenging. The geographical distance was stressed to
! 39! !
open up for challenges going beyond just the lack of proximity. The respondents stressed that the geographical distance created obstacles between both managers and colleagues who were not co-located. The respondents expressed that these challenges sometimes resulted in emotions of stress and anxiety related to their day-to-day performance, explained by not being co-located or able to show the actual results of his or her daily work. This created undesired performance anxiety and a pressure to constantly prove oneself and impress one’s manager;
Having a manager at distance, you always have to prove yourself and what you do every day, but meeting face-to-face is totally different and you reach another understanding (Respondent, 4, Subsidiary).
I have anxiety of my performance and it’s very hard to give a clear and fair picture of who I am, what I´ve done and what I am doing on a day-to-day basis (Respondent, 5, Subsidiary).
It was argued being distant from management was stressed to make it harder to maintain the team structure. Managers at both the HQ and the subsidiary stressed a more complex and difficult situation was to establish structure as the GVT operations are geographically dispersed;
Virtual teams call for increased structure (Respondent 12, HQ)
This distance was seen as having a negative impact on team creativity and collaboration. The subsidiary employees expressed that they often felt they were bothering HQ with “unnecessary” questions and were afraid of “wasting” valuable time when reaching out to management or distant colleagues located at the HQ;
It feels like you don’t just pick up the phone and give someone a call, the is that you always book a meeting to deal with something, you don’t surprise someone with a distant call. (Respondent 9, Subsidiary).
The majority of the respondents at the HQ were in managerial positions and had a distinct understanding of how they strove to practice their leadership of their GVT. All respondents felt that practicing virtual leadership with distant subordinates was a major challenge. One particular obstacle was not being able to simply walk over to an employee’s desk to discuss a possible problem;
(It is) hard to not being able to just walk over and solve the potential problem (Respondent 13, HQ)
! 40! !
Both units presented similar findings on how they perceived good leadership. Traits such as being present, encouraging, coaching, listening, working with follow-ups and creating a clear structure, were all argued as being beneficial to GVTs. However, both units found that it was harder to accomplish these traits on distance for the dispersed team members;
Virtual team(s) should have a clear leader. If the leadership isn’t clear when you don’t have possibility to just walk over and solve the potential problems. (Respondent 10, HQ).
Furthermore, the respondents at both HQ and the subsidiary claimed that being available as a leader in a GVT was a crucial factor, and the subsidiary employees argued that leader availability increased engagement, commitment and motivation within GVTs. Additionally, subsidiary interviewees stressed the importance of having a passionate leader who is willing to put in an extra effort to improve team coherence and belonging, despite the geographical distance;
You need to go the extra mile for the employees located elsewhere rather than here (HQ), since I speak to them every day (Respondent 13, HQ)
Creating an encouraging atmosphere was brought forward as important for leaders to establish. Subsidiary respondents claimed that a lack of transparency within GVTs created distance between management and employees. This distance was seen as negative, with employees reporting that they did not dare to express their thoughts or take action without the consent of their manager, instead keeping quiet. Several non- managerial respondents expressed the importance of having leaders who delegated tasks, providing employees with responsibility and ensuring that they felt supported when making decisions in GVTs;
When people don't dare to take actions, the organization becomes paralyzed (Respondent 7, Subsidiary).
4.6.1(Analysis(of(Leadership(in(GVT( With regards to leadership in GVTs, the most repeatedly voiced challenge was that of having a leader or employees who were not located in the same country. Employees elaborated on issues related to managers who had not found an effective way of executing their leadership, failing to make full use of ICT capabilities, causing geographical distance to become a significant problem for the organization. This is in
! 41! !
line with the challenges elaborated on by Hertel, Geister and Konradt (2005), who discuss the complex situation by not being co-located with your manager or employees. The issue of geographically distant leaders was also described by the respondents, who felt distance problematized organizational structure, managerial control and team coordination as a direct consequence of unsuccessful virtual leadership. By not being able resolving problems, a lower degree of motivation, trust and target achievement could be resulted, which is devastating for the MNC (Gordon, 2017) and thereby not fully complete a successful leadership style and meeting the expectations of the subordinates (Hertel, Geister and Konradt, 2005).
A consequence of the geographically distant leadership of GVTs was that it was difficult for GVT members to see how their contributions fit into the big picture, and they experienced further difficulties in knowing what was expected of them and understanding their specific responsibilities and tasks. Maduka et al. (2018) explain that virtual leaders do not have the same communication possibilities as co-located leaders. Our empirical findings and observations indicated and confirmed that the geographical distance of leaders caused more problems for respondents at the subsidiary compared to the HQ, where face-to-face conversations were possible to a larger extent. Several respondents at the subsidiary mentioned the distance among management and subordinates being more present as the time between the face-to-face meetings were longer and occurred less frequent, ultimately impacting the perceived relationship negatively. They experienced pressure and anxiety related to performance as a result of not being able to meet with their managers often. This was argued to be related to the lack of face-to-face interaction and not being seen or supported on a daily basis. The empirical findings are in accordance with Hertel, Geister and Konradt (2005), who describe that geographically distant leadership negatively impacts GVT members’ motivation, commitment and hence leading to lack of performance.
Hoch and Kozlawski (2014) argue having a less hierarchal structure can be helpful to organizations, as it indicates trust towards employees, and reduces role confusion and team disengagement within GVTs. However, this style of hierarchy was not successfully in place at the case company. The subsidiary unit expressed that the company’s strict, top-down hierarchical structure created further barriers between the subsidiary and HQ management. Working in a hierarchal structure with barriers is
! 42! !
complex for both employees and managers, and Lockwood (2015) argues that transparency is essential in virtual settings in order to develop successful teams.
When leading a culturally diverse group, one of the manager’s most important tasks is to create a cohesive group, recognize each individual’s preferences, and simultaneously get the group to work towards the same target. Therefore, creating a transcultural business environment is a crucial part of being effective in a global market (Northouse, 2013). However, perceptions of what good leadership is are subjective. Eisenberg and Mattarelli (2017) stress the importance of having culturally intelligent managers who foster trust, coherency and collaboration when creating a successful GVT. This was expressed by the subsidiary employees not to be fully fulfilled as their leadership skills were not individually focused and a more general approach utilized, which is argued by Lisak and Erez (2015) to be negative. The subsidiary expressed that they would prefer a more caring leadership style, where GVT members felt that they were appreciated by and visible to their leader.
Moreover, employees agreed on the importance of a trusting business environment. By encouraging non-work related contact, leaders could favor and improve GVT collaboration and enhance team performance (Batarseh, Daspit & Usher, 2017). The empirical findings also highlighted the importance of managerial awareness of cultural differences. The presented literature supports this view, arguing that leaders in virtual settings are required to possess cultural intelligence (Batarseh, Daspit & Usher, 2017) and that leaders play an important role in establishing consensus across GVT operations (Northouse, 2013).
(
(
! 43! !
5.(Discussion(
This chapter presents a discussion of the empirical findings and analysis, taking the theoretical framework into consideration. We will introduce the theoretical model and the main five parameters and conclude with an updated framework based upon our empirical findings which describe the communication challenges faced by GVTs.
This study is based on the theoretical framework created by Daim et al. (2012), addressing the research gap indicated by Marlow et al. (2018), and providing a framework which illustrates the parameters that challenge GVT communication. In our empirical findings, we found data which both confirmed and contradicted the obstacles presented in Daim et al.’s (2012) model. Hence, the findings shed light on crucial obstacles which affect the efficiency of communication within GVTs.
The theoretical model applied in this thesis uses five parameters which affect communication in GVTs. Even though research suggests that technology is a vital factor for MNCs to remain competitive (e.g. Valacich & Schneider, 2017; Popa, Thursamy & Wei, 2017), our results from the case company showed they had an insufficient IT-infrastructure. This was due to the difficulties facing corporations when developing a dependable technological set-up and establishing reliable and functioning communication channels (Sallnäs, 2005). Corporations are required to invest more resources into providing employees with the correct tools for GVT communication (Valacich & Schneider, 2017). Having a sufficient technological setup is essential; however, it is often seen as a big cost for corporations operating in a dynamic market industry where global changes occur at rapid speed. However, being technologically up-to-date makes it easier for corporations to react to rapid market changes and new business opportunities in a smarter and faster way (BCG, 2016; Deloitte, 2018). This implies that corporations are required to continuously invest time, money and effort into developing a supportive IT-infrastructure which is crucial for establishing efficient GVT communication and remaining competitive.
Our results showed that the case company faces challenges with regard to interpersonal relations when working virtually. It was found that face-to-face interactions between GVT members positively impacted GVT collaboration. This might be enhanced by increasing company focus on establishing GVT collaboration,
! 44! !
which will arguably result in improved performance (Daim et al., 2012). The case company could improve team collaboration by organizing co-located team meetings, workshops and outside-work activities to establish and maintain group cohesion and avoid potential misunderstandings whilst communicating virtually. Additionally, sufficient language skills were brought forward as a crucial factor in the successful operation of teams in an international context. However, analysis of the empirical findings indicates that while HQ perceived themselves as proficient English communicators, the subsidiary highlighted the lack of linguistics skills at the HQ. This finding was in contrast to Harzing et al. (2011) and Klintmøller and Lauring (2013), who emphasize the importance of having shared linguistics skills as a foundation for communication. One potential explanation of the differing perceptions of linguistics skills between the two units could be that perceptions of language competency are rooted in culture, which results in linguistics skills being prioritized differently across cultures around the world.
Trust is widely considered a crucial aspect whilst creating of efficient GVT which further were brought forward and presented in our empirical findings. As presented, the case company had a split view on how trust was to be established and maintained within GVTs. The empirical findings indicate that the subsidiary and the HQ do not always have the same perspective on trust, which is in line with Alsharo, Gregg and Ramirez (2017), who discuss how trust is seen as a cornerstone in teams, and is a fundamental element of working in GVTs. Soetanto (2012) describes trust as something highly subjective, which supports our divided empirical findings. The subjective perception of trust was found through the indication from the differing empirical findings from HQ and subsidiary. Moreover, the subjective perception was also found to be impacted by cultural differences in which culture was seen to be something highly impacting trust. This can explain the units’ different perspectives on the correlation between performance and trust and is an indication of how trust is a highly individual concept with no-one-size-fits-all understanding.
Cultural challenges can be summarized into a complexity of having a broad comprehension of our differences as humans. The results show that respondents preferences were divided based on individuals, rather than cultural backgrounds. This is in line with arguments that culture is dynamic and changes over time, which is
! 45! !
something to take into consideration (Tung, 2008). By having cultural awareness within an organization, superior results can be achieved (Lockwood, 2015). Our empirical findings indicate that culture goes beyond being just one obstacle to GVT communication, in contradiction to Daim et al. (2012). We argue culture is a parameter which impacts interpersonal relations, trust and leadership, rather than a stand-alone parameter impacting GVT communication only. It has been shown that culture impacts how collaboration and trust are established and further, which leadership traits are considered preferable and which are not. By arguing culture to be an impacting parameter, laying on a level above the parameters interpersonal relations, trust and leadership, the respondents’ complexity of determining the cultural challenges can be explained as it is an indirect parameter impacting all these obstacles to efficient GVT communication. This motivates why corporations are required to continuously take cultural awareness into consideration and thereby understand how individuals perceive and interpret things differently (Daim et al., 2012).
The data indicates that geographical distance was considered a negative aspect of being part of a GVT (Gordon, 2017; Hertel, Geister & Konradt, 2005). Geographical distance between team leaders and subordinates caused various issues, such as not having the opportunity to receive direct feedback or have a daily dialogue with one’s supervisor. Researchers have proposed that the most effective GVT leaders have chameleon-like characteristics, possessing cultural awareness and cultural intelligence, as well as an ability to tailor their leadership towards the individual when dealing with diverse cultural settings and individuals of various backgrounds (Lisak & Erez, 2015). Interestingly, the subsidiary interviewees stressed the importance of lowering managerial barriers. HQ described their organization as one characterized by open doors and low barriers between management and subordinates (Northouse, 2013). However, subsidiary interviewees indicated that these barriers were very much present. One potential explanation for why these barriers exist could be rooted in how the cultural system of hierarchy at the HQ is a consequence of long lasting tradition. This could be an indication that culture influences traditional roles and organizational structures, which are aligned with national differences, as argued by Daim et al. (2012). Consequently, what is considered a preferable leadership style can be explained by cultural preferences, as these are affected by our core values (Klintmøller & Lauring, 2013)
! 46! !
5.1 The Updated Theoretical Model
We have found that the original parameters presented by Daim et al. (2012) have a strong impact on attaining efficient GVT communication. However, additional and contrary findings have been presented in this thesis and we therefore suggest updating Figure 1 with our empirical findings and analysis, as illustrated in the new Figure 2. Figure 2 contains four levels instead of three, where Culture is considered the main parameter impacting communication challenges within GVTs due to its influence on: Interpersonal Relations, Trust and Leadership.
In the updated model, we argue Technology should be separated (red color) from the remaining three parameters – Interpersonal Relations, Trust and Leadership (green color). This is because we argue technology to be an underlying principal who is not connected to the remaining three parameters, and culture does not influence impact its functionality in any way. Rather, the technological efficiency is a question of how much money and risk a corporation is willing to take and invest in is functionality. Technology is therefore seen as independent from the other three parameters, hence its separation in the new model.
We have placed Culture at the top of the updated figure, listing three parameters below which we argue are highly dependent on Culture. The challenges of Interpersonal Relations, the creation and maintenance of Trust and how Leadership is perceived in a GVT setting are all parameters which we argue are highly dependent on cultural traits and how we as individuals see and perceive various situations and behaviors differently. This is motivated by our own analysis of our empirical findings at the case company, with support from existing theories and we therefore argue the main challenge in establishing efficient GVT communication is related to cultural differences.
We therefore argue the cultural aspect to be highly dependent in how efficient GVT communication is established and maintained. With a crucial, although independent (Technology) factor to be an underlying principal for all GVT communication, three dependent factors (Interpersonal Relations, Trust and Leadership) are of crucial importance to be managed in order to establish efficient GVT communication.
! 47! !
Figure 2. Updated Theoretical Framework
(
(
(
(
(
! 48! !
6.(Conclusion(
The final chapter presents our conclusion based on the empirical findings, analysis and discussion. The chapter will be followed by a presentation of research limitations, research contribution and suggestions for future research.
6.1 Concluding Remarks
The aim of this study was to investigate the parameters which challenge communication in a GVT operating in the energy sector. To fulfil this aim, the framework put forward by Daim et al. (2012) was applied. Based on the literature, the parameters Technology, Interpersonal Relations, Trust, Culture, and Leadership were considered to challenge, impact and limit communication in organizations using GVT. Our research found the framework developed by Daim et al. (2012) to be the most appropriate for investigating the challenges faced by GVTs at the case company.
Our data showed that the case company faces issues related to technology, despite massive technological advances over the last three decades. We found the failing IT- infrastructure to be remarkable as the case company operates in a sector characterized by heavy investments and digital progression, where technological solutions are an essential aspect of remaining competitive.
Collaboration and Trust were highlighted as being essential for successful team performance, and initial face-to-face meetings were considered crucial in establishing group cohesion and collaboration. One major obstacle hindering the creation of collaboration and trust was the geographical distance between team members in GVT. Challenges related to leadership are argued to be highly problematic and challenging. Leading a team in a virtual environment is complex, often leading to a lack of motivation and commitment, resulting in decreased target achievement.
In addition, cultural challenges can be summarized into a complexity of having a broad comprehension of our dissimilarities as individuals and further to be the most impacting factor how GVT members interpret Interpersonal Relations, Trust and Leadership.
! 49! !
6.2(Research(Limitations( Here we would like to shed further light on our study and present the research limitations. First, we would like to stress that our empirical findings are based on 21 face-to-face interviews with employees at the case company Uniper. Therefore, when analyzing our findings, we were required to make a distinction between what was personal opinion and what was the reality of the work environment at the case company. Although the number of interviewees can be considered sufficient for a study of this scale, a larger sample size would have helped make the findings more reliable.
Secondly, we have striven to minimize research limitations by interviewing a wide range of employees at the case company, individually, with both managerial and non- managerial experience. By doing this we hoped to gain additional insight into GVT communication. Since we have conducted a single case study, our findings are hard to replicate and generalize on a larger scale. Moreover, this exploratory study is based on the interviewees’ subjective perceptions and therefore presents empirical and methodological limitations.
Lastly, this study was inspired by the framework developed by Daim et al. (2012). The presented parameters are supported by several scholars (e.g. Alsharo, Gregg & Ramirez, 2017; Batarseh, Daspit & Usher 2017; Castellano, Davidson & Khelladi 2016; Eisenberg & Mattarelli, 2017; Marlow et al., 2018; Zuofa & Ochieng, 2017), who argue these parameters pose challenges for efficient GVT communication. As this study only uses a single framework as its foundation, it is possible that the perspective of the study is somewhat limited, and further research is needed to develop a fuller understanding of the studied topic.
6.3(Research(Contribution( Here we would like to present the practical and theoretical contributions made by our study. First, we argue our practical contribution sheds light on the parameters which challenge communication within MNCs operating in the energy sector using GVT in their business operations. We have created further awareness of the factors that impede GVT communication.
! 50! !
Further, we stress that our theoretical contribution addresses the research gap pointed out by Marlow et al. (2018) stressing the inconsistency of previous research in regards to communication challenges for GVT. With this study, we claim to have shown to what extent these parameters affect efficient virtual communication in the energy sector. In addition, we have confirmed and added new supplementary information to the model created by Daim et al. (2012), which presents extensive insights into how different parameters impact efficient communication in a GVT.
6.4(Future(Research(( ( Based on our results, our analysis and our conclusion, we would like to suggest some avenues for future research with regard to efficient GVT communication. In recent years, increased attention has been paid to the phenomenon of GVTs due to ICT advancements and the importance of being capable of handling business operations on a global scale. This has given rise to the development of GVT. Although this modern phenomenon has boomed in the last few decades, our study shows evident challenges still remain for GVT to fully reach its potential and reap the benefits of the virtual setting.
Our results indicate that perceptions of culture, trust and interpersonal relations differed between the case company HQ and the subsidiary. Since the results were inconclusive, we suggest that future research should investigate these parameters in more depth. A multiple case study approach which investigates and compares the perceived challenges impacting the efficiency of GVT communication could be of interest in supplementing our findings. By generating new insights into the phenomenon of GVTs, future research can contribute to our understanding of how communication challenges in GVTs can be successfully managed. We argue additional research is needed in order to gain a deeper understanding of this complex yet prominent phenomenon.
! 51! !
7. Reference list
Aktas, M., Gelfand, M. and Hanges, P. (2015). Cultural Tightness–Looseness and Perceptions of Effective Leadership. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(2), pp.294-309.
Allwood, J. (2013). A framework for studying human multimodal communication. In Rojc, M. and Campbell, N. (eds) Coverbal Synchrony in Human-Machine Interaction. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, pp.17-39.
Alsharo, M., Gregg, D. and Ramirez, R. (2017). Virtual team effectiveness: The role of knowledge sharing and trust. Information & Management, 54(4), pp.479-490.
Altschuller, S. and Benbunan-Fich, R. (2010). Trust, Performance, and the Communication Process in Ad Hoc Decision-Making Virtual Teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(1), pp.27-47.
Babin, B. and Zikmund, W (2016). Essentials of marketing research. [Erscheinungsort nicht ermittelbar]: South-Western.
Bailey.S (2013) How To Beat The Five Killers Of Virtual Working. Accessed 2018-02-21 at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastianbailey/2013/03/05/how-to-overcome-the-five- major-disadvantages-of-virtual-working/#41fa39b12734
Bain & Company (2017) Energy Management in the age of disruption. Bain Brief. Accessed 2018-02-19 at: http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/energy-management-in-the-age-of- disruptions.aspx
Baldwin, R. (2016). The great convergence: Information Technology and the new Globalization. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Batarseh, F., Daspit, J. and Usher, J. (2017). The collaboration capability of global virtual teams: relationships with functional diversity, absorptive capacity, and innovation. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 13(1), pp.1-10.
BCG (2016) Saving Globalization and technology from themselves. Imperatives for corporate leaders. Accessed 2018-03-01 at: https://www.bcg.com/publications/2016/strategy-globalization-saving-globalization- technology-from-themselves.aspx
! 52! !
Berisha-Shaqiri,A (2015). Impact of information technology and internet in Business. Academic journal of business, administration, law and social science. Vol.1 No.1 pp.73-79.
Binder, J. (2009). Global Project Management: Communication, Collaboration and Management across Borders. Strategic Direction, 25(9).
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. Fourth ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bryman A. and Bell, E (2011) Business Research Methods. 4th Edt, Oxford University Press.
Carter, DR, Seely, PW, Dagosta, J, DeChurch LA and Zaccaro, SJ. (2014). Leadership for Global Virtual Teams: Facilitating Teamwork Processes. Leading Global teams. Springer Science Business Media, New York.
Cassell,C, Symon, G (2015) "Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: ten years on", An International Journal, Vol. 10 Issue: 4.
Castellano, S., Davidson, P. and Khelladi, I. (2016). Creativity techniques to enhance knowledge transfer within global virtual teams in the context of knowledge-intensive enterprises. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(2), pp.253-266.
Chang, H., Chuang, S. and Chao, S. (2011). Determinants of cultural adaptation, communication quality, and trust in virtual teams' performance. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 22(3), pp.305-329.
Chapman, M., Gajewska-De Mattos, H., Clegg, J. and Jennings Buckley, P. (2008). Close neighbours and distant friends—perceptions of cultural distance. International Business Review, 17(3), pp.217-234.
Christensen, B. and Kowalczyk, C. (2017). Globalization. 1st ed. Berlin: Springer Berlin.
Collins, H. (2013). Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Cornett, A,P., Karsson,C, Wallin, T. (2018) Globalization, international spillover and sectoral changes: implications for regions and industries. Elgaronline.
Crane, A., Henriques, I. and Husted, B. (2017). Quants and Poets: Advancing Methods and Methodologies in Business and Society Research. Business & Society,57(1) pp3- 25
! 53! !
Creswell,.W, John. (2007) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 2nd Edt. SAGE publications Inc.
Daim, T., Ha, A., Reutiman, S., Hughes, B., Pathak, U., Bynum, W. and Bhatla, A. (2012) Exploring the communication breakdown in global virtual teams. International Journal of Project Management, 30(2), pp.199-212.
Deloitte (2018) The Fourth Industry revolution is here - are you ready? Accessed 2018-03-19 at: https://www.forbes.com/forbes-insights/our-work/fourth-industrial-revolution/
Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide: For Small-scale Social Research Projects (Open UP Study Skills). McGraw-Hill.
Doh, J. (2015). From the Editor: Why we need phenomenon-based research in international business. Journal of World Business, 50(4), pp.609-611.
Drogendijk, R & Zander, L. (2010) Walking the Cultural Distance: In search of direction beyond friction, Devinney, In: T.M. Devinney, T.Pedersen & Tihanyi, L. (Eds) Advances in International Management, 23:189-212
Dyer, W. and Wilkins, A. (1991). Better Stories, Not Better Constructs, To Generate Better Theory: A Rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), pp.613-619.
Eisenberg, J. and Mattarelli, E. (2017). Building Bridges in Global Virtual Teams: The Role of Multicultural Brokers in Overcoming the Negative Effects of Identity Threats on Knowledge Sharing Across Subgroups. Journal of International Management, 23(4), pp.399-411.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), p.532.
EY (2015) Excellence in Financial communication. Meeting the needs of international investors by ensuring effective financial communication. Accessed 2018-03-19 at: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY_IPO_Excellence_in_financial_com munication/$FILE/EY-IPO-Excellence-in-financial-communication.pdf
Flyvbjerg, B. (2003). Fem missförstånd om fallstudieforskning, Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift 106(4), 185-206.
Forsgren, M. (2013). Theories of the Multinational Firm. 2nd edition, Uppsala. Edward Elgar Publishing. Inc. Massachusetts, USA.
! 54! !
Hardin, A, Fuller, M.,and Davison, R. (2007). Efficacy in Technology-Mediated Distributed Teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(3), pp.209-235.
Ghauri, P. and Grønhaug, K. (2010). Research methods in business studies. New York: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Gioia, D., Corley, K. and Hamilton, A. (2012). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), pp.15-31.
Gordon.A (2017) Leadership interaction in global virtual teams: Roles, models and challenges. Auckland University of Technology
Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), pp.109-122.
Haas, L, Mazzei, L; M., J.; O'Leary, Donal T.. (2011). Opportunities in dam planning and management: a communication practitioner's handbook for large water infrastructure. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Han, S., Chae, C., Macko, P., Park, W. and Beyerlein, M. (2017). How virtual team leaders cope with creativity challenges. European Journal of Training and Development, 41(3), pp.261-276.
Harzing, A., Köster, K. and Magner, U. (2011). Babel in business: The language barrier and its solutions in the HQ-subsidiary relationship. Journal of World Business, 46(3), pp.279-287.
Hertel, G., Geister, S. and Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), pp.69-95.
Hoch, J.E and Kozlowski, S.W (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390-403
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1).
International Energy Agency, IEA (2017). World Energy Investment Report 2017. Accessed: 2018-05-02 at https://www.iea.org/publications/wei2017/
Jacobsen, D. I. (2002). Vad , hur och varför? Om metodval i företagsekonomi och andra samhällsvetenskapliga ämnen, Lund: Studentlitteratur.
! 55! !
Lockwood, J. (2015). Virtual team management: what is causing communication breakdown? Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(1), pp.125-140.
Johannessen, J., Olaisen, J. and Olsen, B. (2001). Mismanagement of tacit knowledge: the importance of tacit knowledge, the danger of information technology, and what to do about it. International Journal of Information Management, 21(1), pp.3-20.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. and Wei, K. (2014). Conflict and Performance in Global Virtual Teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(3), pp.237-274.
Kelly, N. (2013). Building Trust in Communications. Accessed 2018-04-29 at: http://www.trustacrossamerica.com/documents/building-trust reports/KellyCommunications.pdf
Kirkman, B., Lowe, K. and Gibson, C. (2006). A quarter century of Culture's Consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), pp.285-320.
Klitmøller, A. and Lauring, J. (2013). When global virtual teams share knowledge: Media richness, cultural difference and language commonality. Journal of World Business, 48(3), pp.398-406. -
Laitinen, K. and Valo, M. (2018). Meanings of communication technology in virtual team meetings: Framing technology-related interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 111, pp.12-22.
Han, K., Lee, J. and Choi, J. (2017). Evaluation of Demand-Side Management over Pricing Competition of Multiple Suppliers Having Heterogeneous Energy Sources. Energies, 10(9), p.1342.
Lisak, A. and Erez, M. (2015). Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business, 50(1), pp.3-14.
Maduka, N., Edwards, H., Greenwood, D., Osborne, A. and Babatunde, S. (2018). Analysis of competencies for effective virtual team leadership in building successful organizations. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(2), pp.696-712.
Magnier-Watanabe, R., Watanabe, Y., Aba, O. and Herrig, H. (2017). Global virtual teams’ education: experiential learning in the classroom. On the Horizon, 25(4), pp.267-285.
! 56! !
Marlow, S., Lacerenza, C., Paoletti, J., Burke, C. and Salas, E. (2018). Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach?: A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, pp.145-170.
Marlow, S., Lacerenza, C. and Salas, E. (2017). Communication in virtual teams: a conceptual framework and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), pp.575-589.
Martinic,A, K. Fertalj, and D. Kalpic, (2012) Methodological Framework for Virtual Team Project Management, International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 702-707.
McKinsey (2015) Can we talk? Five tips for communicating in turnarounds. Accessed 2018-02-19 at: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our- insights/can-we-talk-five-tips-for-communicating-in-turnarounds
McKinsey (2016) How social tools can reshape the organization. Accessed 2018-03-10 at: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/our-insights/how- social-tools- can-reshape-the-organization
McKinsey (2017) Three game changers for Energy. Accessed 2018-02-19 at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-and-gas/our-insights/three-game-changers- for-energy
McKinsey (2018) Organizing for the age of urgency: To compete at the speed of digital, you need to unleash your strategy, your structure, and your people. Accessed 2018-02-19 at: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Organization/ Our%20Insights/Organizing%20for%20the%20age%20of%20urgency/Organizing- for-the-age-of-urgency.ashx
Montagna, N (2017) A Review: R. Baldwin, “The Great Convergence: Information Technology and the New Globalization” Journal of Culture, Politics and Innovation. pp. 1-4.
Morgan Stanley (2017) Renewable energy hits global tipping point. Accessed 2018-02-19 at: https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/solar-wind-renewable-energy-utilities
! 57! !
Northouse, P.G (2013). Leadership: Theory & Practice. 7th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Nedrick, S., Wellen, W., Barnwell, D., Rudolph, E., & Sesay, M. (2014). Leadership of International and Virtual Project Teams. International Journal of Global Business pp. 7(2).
Patel, R. and Davidson, B. (2003). Forskningsmetodikens grunder: Att planera, genomföra och rapportera en undersökning, 3 uppl. Studentlitteratur: Lund
Pettigrew, A. (1997) What is a processual analysis?. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), pp.337-348.
Powell, J (2017) The Effects of Globalization and technology on business. Accessed 2018-03-01 at: https://bizfluent.com/info-8443960-effects-globalization-technology-business.html
PwC (2018) Fourth Industrial Revolution for the Earth: Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for the Earth. Accessed 2018-05-04 at: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/sustainability/assets/ai-for-the-earth-jan-2018.pdf
RW Culture Wizard (2016) Trends in Global Virtual Teams. Accessed 2018-04-01 at: http://cdn.culturewizard.com/PDF/Trends_in_VT_Report_4-17-2016.pdf
Sallnäs, E. (2005). Effects of Communication Mode on Social Presence, Virtual Presence, and Performance in Collaborative Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 14(4), pp.434-449.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. Thornhill, A. (2009) Research Methods for Business Students. 6th edt, Pearson Education Limited.
Seo, Y. and Chae, S. (2016). Market Dynamics and Innovation Management on Performance in SMEs: Multi-agent Simulation Approach. Procedia Computer Science, 91, pp.707-714
Signorini, P., Wiesemes, R. and Murphy, R. (2009). Developing alternative frameworks for exploring intercultural learning: a critique of Hofstede's cultural difference model. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), pp.253-264.
Soetanto, R. (2012). Communication modes and performance of virtual design teams in an undergraduate building project. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Edinburgh, pp. 177 - 187
! 58! !
Tosi, H. and Pilati, M. (2011). Managing Organizational Behavior. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Tung, R. (2008). The cross-cultural research imperative: the need to balance cross- national and intra-national diversity. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1), pp.41-46.
Uniper (2016) Energy Service. Your One-stop-shop solution provider.
Uniper (2017) Annual report 2017: Financial results
Valacich, J. and Schneider, C. (2017). Information Systems Today. Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.
Wang, H. (2009). Nonverbal Communication and the Effect on Interpersonal Communication. Asian Social Science, 5(11).
Welch, M (2014). Exploring the impact of communication technologies on business air travel. Journal of organizational culture, communications and conflicts. Vol.18. pp 187-223.
Wildman, J. and Griffith, R. (2015). Leading Global Teams. New York, NY: Springer.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Zander, L., Mockaitis, A. and Butler, C. (2012). Leading global teams. Journal of World Business, 47(4), pp.592-603.
Zuofa, T. and Ochieng, E. (2017). Working separately but together: appraising virtual project team challenges. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 23(5/6), pp.227-242
! 59! !
Appendix 1. Interview Guide
First, we would like to say thank you for contributing to our Master Thesis, conducted from the School of Business and Economics at Uppsala University. Our investigated topics concern a rather new phenomenon called Global Virtual Team (GVT), which is characterized by members communicating in there every day work through virtual means. Our aim is to provide further understanding in the researched subject and your contribution will therefore lead to improvements in the research regarding GVT communication challenges.
By contributing to our research at one occasion during next week (V.15) we will gain valuable insights from your experience in your profession. The interviews will be held at the office at Uniper Malmö at the conference room called Bylgia Joule 334 and will take approximately 60 minutes. The interview will be recorded for reliability and validity purposes to ensure methodological requirements, please let us know in advance if there is anyone that don’t want to be audio recorded. The authors and Uniper has engaged in a non-disclosure agreement making the interviews and the collected data strictly confidential and will not be disclosed at any circumstances. The collected material and the presented findings will be completely anonymous.
If there are any questions regarding the interviews your contribution, please don’t hesitate to give us a call or mail and we will be happy to answer or clarify the subject. We are so excited about your participation and having these interviews, enabling us to explore and seek further understanding in what challenges you experience in your daily work in a virtual setting.
Best regards,
Patrik Blomqvist and Oscar Nordstrand
Master-Thesis at Uppsala University, Department of Business Studies
! 60! !
Introduction(to(our(research((
The first chapter will introduce the background, followed by the identified research problem related to communication challenges in Global Virtual Teams. The chapter will then present the aim of the study, followed by the research question to be answered throughout the paper. The chapter will end by a presentation of the case company.
Research(Background( ( Over the last 30 years, multinational corporations (MNC) have become more globally integrated and therefore increasingly geographically dispersed (Cornett, Karlsson & Wallin 2018; Forsgren 2013; Powell, 2017). Multiple scholars agree that the phenomenon of globalization has evolved due to the technological progress which has taken place over the past few decades; technology is seen as a key enabler of globalization (Baldwin, 2016; BCG, 2016; Montagna, 2017). Berisha-Shaqiri (2015) stresses how the technological revolution has and will continue to change the way corporations operate. This has resulted in the reshaping of industries, forcing corporations to master the technological developments which have redefined the competitive landscape (McKinsey, 2018). ICT has prevailed in the modern era, giving rise to vast possibilities, as well as creating new challenges for corporations to overcome (Deloitte, 2018).
Valacich and Schneider (2017) claim that globalization, aided by technology, is the integration and development of economies throughout the modern world as enabled by ICT. By implementing ICT in their organizations, corporations can adapt to a new landscape of business operations that can drastically improve their virtual communication capabilities (Maduka et al., 2018; McKinsey, 2018). Corporations can enable ICT for improved communication throughout the whole organization, putting together global teams and reducing time to market changes, enabling them to respond to dynamic threats as they occur (Batarseh, Daspit & Usher, 2017; Maduka et al., 2018; Welch, 2014). McKinsey (2018) notes that 80% of global executives in MNCs highlight the importance of ICT as it enables team collaboration and strengthens global business operations. By simplifying business operations through the provision of efficient communication tools, corporations can establish connectivity within global organizations
! 61! !
Research(Problem( ( ICT is argued to enable easier, faster and more cost efficient ways of establishing connectivity across business operations (Martinic, Fertalj & Kalpic, 2012). By using effective virtual communication, GVT operations could enhance team collaboration and team efficiency (Marlow, Lacerenza & Salas, 2017). Using GVT allows faster and shared decision-making processes and adaption to dynamic market changes, whilst simultaneously improving business operations (Valacich & Schneider, 2017). Although the significance of GVT communication is well known, questions remain regarding functionality and efficiency in the virtual context in which corporations face multiple communication challenges (Marlow et al., 2018). Since communication is executed virtually in GVTs, a lack of human interaction and face-to-face communication is a given. Scholars therefore maintain that ICT is the core pillar of a successful GVT (Wildman & Griffith, 2015). Batarseh, Daspit and Usher (2017) highlight that only 18% of all GVTs achieve communicative success. Deloitte (2018) demonstrates the complexity of GVTs by presenting an executive report in which 1600 executives describe how ICT offers huge opportunities to corporations, while also presenting many challenges and a great deal of uncertainty. One cause of GVT complexity is the lack of a best practice, with no one-size-fits-all type of concept applicable to complex situations (McKinsey, 2015). Corporations are still in the early stages of implementing ICT; gaining insights into the challenges of GVTs is therefore of crucial importance.
( Aim(and(Research(Question(
Given the importance of understanding challenges in regards to GVT and communication, the aim of this thesis is to investigate what factors challenge efficient communication in GVT. To encounter the aim of the study and contribute to the academia and practitioners, following research question would be of interest to answer;
- Which factors impede effective communication for Global Virtual Teams operating in the energy sector?
! 62! !
Appendix 2. Interview Questions
General Questions: 1. Describe your role at Uniper? 2. How many years have you been employed at Uniper? 3. Total amount of experience in a GVT setting? 4. Can you describe the group composition of your current GVT? a) How many nationalities are there? b) What language do you speak with each other? c) For how long have you been in this specific GVT? 5. Can you describe how working within the energy sector is? a) In your perception, are there any specific characteristics describing the industry?
Technology: 6. How do you communicate in your GVT? a) How often do you speak or meet each other? 7. Can you please elaborate on your perception of utilizing virtual communication, rather than meeting face-to-face? 8. What are the challenges in regards to technology in your GVT? 9. Are you able to communicate about everything in your GVT?
Interpersonal Relations: 10. In your present GVT, please describe how relationships are established? 11. Can you elaborate on what factors challenging team collaboration in your GVT? 12. In your experience, describe how linguistic skills, language skills and non-verbal cues impacts virtual communication in your GVT?
Trust: 13. In your perception, describe how trust is established in your GVT? 14. Can you elaborate on how trust affect your GVT and team performance? 15. Is physical interaction something that impact the creation of trust?
Culture: 16. How is culture mirrored in your day-to-day work? I7. Is cultural awareness important in your GVT, if so, please elaborate in what way? 18. In your perception, describe what cultural factors to have in mind when working in GVT?
Leadership: 19. Please describe how leadership is executed in your GVT? a) Elaborate how you perceive managing, or being managed on distance? 20. In your perception, what are the most important leadership traits in a GVT? 21. Describe how you perceive the relationship between management and employee’s in GVT? a) How is the relationship impacted by physical distance and virtual communication?
! 63! !
Appendix 3. Thematic Analysis
Technology: Interpersonal Trust: Culture: Leadership: Relations: “You feel “Shorter “Distance has a “The Swedish “The Germans forgotten and conversations in negative factor leadership is very might feel that they sometimes you emails or skype, on creation of “open” and I can have the power need to remind than in face-to- trust, but time talk to my seniors since they are the people that you face meetings” ease the whenever, about HQ, but its not are present. establishment of anything and outspoken, they However, this “Keeping trust” management in don’t ask, just do” leads to I do not motivation is Sweden is a part communicate as hard while being “Trust is of “us”, then “Having a much as I would a part of a created when going over seas.” manager at if I were virtual meeting, competence is distance, you present, you phone showed” “Cultural clashes always have to don’t want to interviews are are not handled in prove yourself and interrupt.” even harder” “Lack of a very large what you do every linguistic extent. Some day, but meeting is “Its easy to “feels like you knowledge have people believes totally different and mute the don’t just pick a negative that western you reach another meeting and do up the phone impact on trust” Europe are the understanding” something else and give same, however, whilst someone a call, “We we are different” “The person who participating on the courtesy is continuously has the highest a phone that you always need to work on “Non-official rank is the in-direct conference. I book a meeting our relationship, cues and reading leader of the usually sit and to deal with creating a better between the lines meeting” work while something, you understanding are harder in meetings go don’t surprise of how our virtual setting” “The functional along.” someone with a different organization is call, however, it cultures work” “Crucial of hard, how is my “Non-verbal gives you a having different boss able to know communication structure of “Gain trust “hats” to what i´m doing in is crucial, don’t what to do every face-to-face but different people” my day-to-day see how people day” also in content work while not react with facial and result but ” You need to being co-located” expressions etc “The barrier is can be done in respect that which makes it high when it parallel “ people aren’t the “Have anxiety of hard to capture comes to same way as you my performance the full scope “ language, some “Try to be in are” and its very hard to people avoid contact, not only give a clear and “You get what speaking talk business” “Diversity is very fair picture of who you pay for, because they valuable for the I am, what I´ve some systems prefer their “No one size fits company” done and what I am don’t talk to native all” concept of doing on a day-to- each other” language” gaining trust to ”Higher barrier day basis” people, need to towards the “Doing non- be adjustable to distant cultures”
! 64! !
“Technical work related the individual” ” Not only “You need to “go issues usually things are cultural aspects, the extra mile” for happen at least crucial which “Protecting rather the the employees once, but isn’t possible in your employees individual located elsewhere sometimes two virtual setting or are crucial and characteristics” rather than here or three times communication stepping up since I speak to per meeting”. for obvious when hard times ” Of course, is them every day, say reasons. come” cultural good morning etc.” “Try not to Although, If you awareness travel a lot and have a good “Crucial in important. You ”Virtual means use interpersonal which team cant expect calls for increased technological relationship, members are people behave, structured. solutions in virtual able to share just like Ensuring everyone stead “ communication what is on top of you behave” are able to follow is facilitated.” their minds, and engaged in the ”The virtual otherwise they ” Key is to know meeting” communication might be quite “ cultural and the “The distance differences exist, ”Importance of collaboration is doesn’t have any “Performance there is chit-chat, call the so much easier impact on creates trust” differences and members once a when the collaboration” they need to be week to check, how participants ”The raised awareness are he/she is doing have met ” Language is a commitment, towards. Not etc.”. before” barrier; HQ reliability, pushing the limit want to keep dependability on the cultural ” It is very ” Slow some impact the difference but still important to lower connection, information for creation of being street smart the barrier between everything is themselves” trust” in regards to the leader and running slow” cultural” employees.Since ”Lot of thing ”I perceive the traditions, ” Low degree of depends on the small talk before ”Be consist and employees don’t synergies among language skills and after are of concrete, don’t have the courage to the systems in among the great make go to the bosses” Uniper due to participant in importance for assumption. different the virtual developing Making “The spontaneous business units” setting. More trust. In order to assumptions, communication is easy to establish develop trust making an ass of limited, you don’t ”It is very collaboration and achieve you”. just call” common 10-15 when working results” minutes late due face to face.” ” Culture impacts “If the leader isnt to technological ”Trust has a big collaboration” reachable, problems” ” First and most impact on the demotivation is important, meet performance” ” The awareness created”. “Without face-to-face and is of crucial technology, we create a ” Trust important, and ”The leader cant wouldn’t be able relationship increases if respect for each be present in all to function” through communication other” decision, interaction” is frequent” delegation and trust is important”
! 65! !
“The technology ”We should ” Trust is ” Virtual ”If people don’t doesn’t work have higher differing based communication is dare to do actions, that good. focus on upon the not very suitable organization However, the language, by individual traits, for all cultures, became paralyzed” desired being an not the location some cultures it is connection has international of the important to look ” Be clear, have been aimed but organization we individual” into the eyes” distinct agenda, not should possess keep on time. accomplished. English traits” ” Lot of things ” We don’t work Create a structure We have the depend on the with cultural and all actions right ”The language employee and awareness, but it need to be followed prerequisites but is based upon traits shouldn’t be up. I usually send still don’t the own possessed” bad.” out an agenda manage it to be experience and before and key successful.” there is lot of “First step of ” There are notes afterwards to Germans that establishing cultural ensure people have “You are are really good, trust is to meet differences, of capture the most relying on the however, also face to face” course” important things” technology when very many operating in a people don’t ” Without trust, ” First, you need ” It should be like virtual setting. speak English” we wouldn’t be to be aware of an open forum, a However, at the able to succeed there is cultural dialogue is end of the day, if ” You can’t with our virtual differences. important”. the technology replace face-to- operations” Saying we are all fails to deliver, face meetings similar based ” Virtual team you face through virtual “People can upon we are all should have a clear issues.” means” have lot of trust from Europe, leader. However, developed that’s just the leadership isn’t ”We seek not to ” Complexity among each bizarre” that clear travel, solving regarding other and I when you haven’t the things involving all believe it is ”Biggest mistake the proximity through virtual employees at the highly you can do is to among each other” means rather subsidiaries in impacting the ignore cultural than going the same way as performance” differences” ”Cultural the distance”. the HQ. Awareness, However, you “Without trust, Communication need to make you wouldn’t be skills, Situational them feel they successful in a Leadership” are at the same virtual team” page as we are” ”Hard to not being ” Transparency able, to just walk ” At first, is crucial over and solve the collaboration important, to potential problem” should be avoid mistrust” established ”Availability is through face-to- key” face meetings”
! 66!