Leading global virtual teams

1.  Introduction

With the emerging of low-cost locations and externalisation, for many multinational companies, virtual communication has become a standard in the way global and multi-located teams interact. Nowadays, teams could be spread across multiple locations, and leaders should adapt their style to remote and locally based employees. Additionally, teleworking is a growing trend. For instance, in the UK in 2019 1,7 Million people reported working mainly from home, and 4 Million said they were working regularly from home.[1] In 2018, 22% of the workforce in the United States said they had access to teleworking[2], and 60% of them explained they have been working remotely on a weekly basis.[3] In addition, during the same year, it was estimated that the potential of remote work people was 51% of the entire workforce.[4]

In this context, virtual communication is increasing its prominence and is becoming central to the modern work environment. However, despite the growing use of virtual channel in the modern office, it does have its own unique set of disadvantages. For example, a survey produced by RW3 CultureWizard showed that 84% of the participants found it more difficult to communicate virtually than in person.[5] Not only the team member, the manager confirm that they have experienced difficulties to manage GVT for 94% of them.[6]

This paper will conduct a study on the challenges faced by the global virtual team (GVT) leader of today. In particular, the study will examine a) the key factors that must be considered when leading a team virtually, b) the aspects that could lead to failure.

In order to answer the above questions this paper will analyse, as evidence, the results a survey on global teams produced in 2019 by Globalization Partner and Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). The questionnaire is provided in Annexe 1. The results will be compared to RW3 CultureWizard survey and other experience in the literature. This way, challenges in GVTs will be identified and discussed.

2.  Theoretical Base

2.1. Characteristic of GVTs

GVT is a global concept that does not have a clear definition in academic literature, but many common characteristics could be found in the literature. Jarvenpaa and Leidner highlight on the “temporary, culturally diverse, geographically dispersed, electronically communicating” aspects of the GVT.[7] Maznevski and Chudoba expand this definition by adding the globalisation of the tasks.[8] This aspect is also mentioned by Martins et al. defining the GVT as a “team whose members use technology to varying degrees in working across locational, temporal, and relational boundaries to accomplish an interdependent task”.[9] Through a review of all the definitions, Orhan identifies the use of information communication technologies and geographic (national or international), temporal or organizational dispersions, and independence tasks as the main characteristics.[10] Furthermore, in GVT, the individual interacts with the team through a layer of communication technology, either fully or partially. The individual handles interdependent tasks with minimal face-to-face contact. Based on the definitions, diversity is a key aspect of global team: Different work cultures, generational differences within the team, and team members not sharing a common lingua franca are often the characteristics of GVT.[11]

2.2. Method to lead the GVT

A leader is an “individual that influences a group to achieve common goal”.[12] Leaders should set a just cause, an ideal, a right cause that a team/ an organisation should strive to achieve.[13] On one hand, people believe that best efforts to honour implicit or expressed commitments create trust.[14] Maister defines it as “reliability” and describes it as a component of trust.[15] It could be defined as the relation between a promise and an action. Therefore, the leader should be true to their word, which is crucial for maintaining a relationship of trust between them and the rest of the team. Academic literature cites the lack of trust as a risk in virtual teams.[16] Despite the fact that leaders can have the same charisma and presence as in physical meeting, they should communicate regularly and transparently with the team to gain its trust. In return, by trusting him/her, the team will also be more transparent and open to discuss existing issues. In addition, failure to report problems is another disadvantage of GVT as pointed out by academics.[17]

On other hand, David Maister defines trust as inversely proportional to the focus of the person to trust.[18] In other words, unclear or coercive instructions create a lack of trust between a leader and his/her team. Moreover, to facilitate the clarification of the goals and their achievement, leaders should establish clear rules. Hoch and Kozlowski speak of “structural support”, which could be incorporating a reward system and covers also the communication and information. [19] A leader should structure the way he/she communicates with his/her team. For new employees, it is easier to be in an environment which is well structured and defined.[20] A way of becoming familiar with the team could be a skills matrix, harnessing the team’s expertise and promoting team cohesion.[21] Moreover, a working framework should include track progress methods. For example, a good practice is to plan cyclic meetings to exchange status, discuss issues and agree on the next steps. Indeed, regular meeting are structuring processes and expectations over time, by imposing a dynamic to the team.[22] In addition, achieving milestones, and meeting minutes are required to track progress but are also use in the development of performance metrics.[23] These practices allows reactivity on the manager side. The experience shows that regular feedback has a positive effect on the performance of GVT.[24] Indeed, team leaders should be proactive in addressing emerging issues and re-focus the team’s efforts if necessary.

3.  Verification of the Theory

3.1. Identified Difficulties

As the theory states, transparency is important because it allows leaders to identify and react to emerging problems. GVTs usually report fewer problems than single-location teams. To the question which teams report more problem, 41% fewer participant thinks that GVT reports more problems compared to the single location one.[25] This lack of transparency can be caused by psychological safety issues. The individual’s perception that the group will not reject someone for asking, sharing opinion or doubt is defined as psychological safety.[26] In the experience of Nordb?ck and Espinosa, an Asian team member had a phycological safety issue with the leader’s style.[27] In this experience, the workers had a voice in the decision process and the leader was only leading the way. The Asian team member was struggling to take position and was lost by the lack of instructions from his European leader. He felt anxious to express his opinion freely. While in Western culture, technical discussion does not have hierarchical or experience barrier, and a junior member can express doubts to more senior colleagues or to a manager, this is not often the case in non-Western countries. Goleman states that a good leader should master several managing styles and adapt his style to the situation.[28] To obtain the transparency, the manager should adapt his style to the team in order to maximise the team’s full potential. Another explanation could be the lack of trust. According to the SHRM and Globalization Partners survey, the trust are slightly less for GVT than within the global organization itself.[29] In RW3 CultureWizard survey, trust is for 39% considered as challenging to established.[30] In their literature review, Clark et al. find that trust is one of the most mentioned inter-factors, and a success factor for the GVT but not a negative communication factor.[31]

3.2. Globalization of the Team

3.2.1.  Culture and Languages

As mentioned in the various literature definitions, diversity is a key part of the GVT. According to the survey, only 5% of the participants said that they never had cultural misalignment.[32] Moreover cultural difference is considered as one of the biggest challenges for GVTs, as 33% of the survey participants reveal.[33] Experience showed that leaders should understand the culture and the diversity of the team in order to make it into a force, but it could also become a disadvantage if not properly manage.[34] For instance, in India, respect towards authority will lead to obedience and lack of critical feedback because the leader commands are not questioned.[35] Facing this kind of cultural psychological safety, mangers should, in this case, explicitly ask for feedback concerning their instructions or if the colleague has some doubts.

In addition to culture, language diversity is a key characteristic of a GVT. In SHRM and Globalization Partners survey, more than 42% of the teams questioned speaks more than three languages.[36] 27% of the participants in the same survey feel language barrier is a problem, and the more languages are spoken the stronger is the perception of language barrier.[37] This conclusion can also be found in academic literature.[38] For instance, in their experience, Klitm?ller and Lauring pointed out that knowledge sharing could get harder because of language commonality. [39]

3.2.2. Time Dispersion

GVT are very often multi-located across several countries and time zones. In the SHRM and Globalization Partner Survey, almost half the participant pointed out that collaboration across times zones represents their major challenge for a GVT.[40] 38% said scheduling of work across time zones is amongst the bigger issues.[41] In RW3 CultureWizard survey, 88% of the participants consider it as the top cultural challenge.[42] Behind this answers comes the need for structure and processes to manage the communication as per mentioned in the literature.[43] The complicated working environment should be simplified by creating rules and ways of working to enable the GVT to reach its full potential. For instance, in the experience of Jarvenpaa and Leidner, the members of successful virtual team established rules as base for their common work.[44]

4.  Conclusion and Perspective

Across this survey analysis, it could be pointed out that the challenges GVT leaders face are of endogenous nature. On one hand, the issues to monitor are organisational, with the international virtual collaboration and the reporting the leader. In fact, the data pointed out that time zones represent a serious challenge to organise work. Moreover, leaders must adapt their method to obtain feedback and transparency from the team, as the GVTs usually report fewer issues. Trust is also as an issue in GVTs according to the academic literature and the survey data. [45] Some other factors such as miscommunication and struggling to manage GVTs are highlighted.

On the other hand, the challenge is linked to the composition of the team itself. Multi-cultural environments and languages are two key aspects. A key point is that the leader’s style must be adapted to the cultural differences in his or her team. The academic literature shows that among the country, individual have different leadership expectations. [46]

To conclude, the failure factor of GVT is mostly human related. The GVT catalyse existing team issues and exacerbate them, making it harder to manage. A GVT leader should be more perceptive to his team compared to his/her face-to-face counterpart and be proactive when solving problems. The initial set up of a GVT is a crucial moment for the future success of the GVT. The way that the team is going to work together must be set and accepted by the team to get optimal performance. In other words, method and process are critical in a GVT and can lead to team failing if not set properly.

[1] Office for National Statistics, Coronavirus and homeworking in the UK labour market: 2019

[2] “Status of Telework in the Federal Government Report to Congress,” 2019, 8.

[3] “Status of Telework in the Federal Government Report to Congress,” 9.

[4] “Status of Telework in the Federal Government Report to Congress,” 8.

[5] RW3 CultureWizard, “Trends in High-Perfoming Global Virtual Team,” 2018, 4.

[6] SHRM and Globalization Partners, “2019 CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS OF LOBAL TEAMS — AN HR PERSPECTIVE,” Spring 2019, 6.

[7] Sirkka L Jarvenpaa and Dorothy E Leidner, “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams” 10, no. 6 (December 1999): 26.

[8] Martha L. Maznevski and Katherine M. Chudoba, “Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness,” Organization Science 11, no. 5 (October 2000): 473–92, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.5.473.15200.

[9] Luis L. Martins, Lucy L. Gilson, and M. Travis Maynard, “Virtual Teams: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here?,” Journal of Management 30, no. 6 (December 2004): 805–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.05.002.

[10] Mehmet A. Orhan, “The Evolution of the Virtuality Phenomenon in Organisations: A Critical Literature Review,” Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 5, no. 4 (2017): 171–88, https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2017.050408.

[11] Penny Pullan, Virtual Leadership: Practical Strategies for Getting the Best out of Virtual Work and Virtual Teams (London ; Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page, 2016), 125.

[12] Peter Guy Northouse, Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4th ed (Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2007), 3.

[13] Simon Sinek, The Infinite Game, 1st Edition (New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2019).

[14] Roderick Moreland Kramer and Tom R. Tyler, eds., Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 1996), 303.

[15] David H Maister, Robert M Galford, and Charles H Green, The Trusted Advisor (New York; London: Free Press, 2004), 69.

[16] Jarvenpaa and Leidner, “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams”; Arvind Malhotra, Ann Majchrzak, and Benson Rosen, “Leading Virtual Teams,” Academy of Management Perspectives 21, no. 1 (2007): 60–70; Pullan, Virtual Leadership, 63.

[17] Bradford S. Bell and Steve W. J. Kozlowski, “A Typology of Virtual Teams: Implications for Effective Leadership,” Group & Organization Management 27, no. 1 (March 2002): 14–49, https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601102027001003; Emma S. Nordb?ck and J. Alberto Espinosa, “Effective Coordination of Shared Leadership in Global Virtual Teams,” Journal of Management Information Systems 36, no. 1 (January 2, 2019): 321–50, https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1558943; Anne P. Massey, Mitzi M. Montoya-Weiss, and Yu-Ting Hung, “Because Time Matters: Temporal Coordination in Global Virtual Project Teams,” Journal of Management Information Systems 19, no. 4, (2003): 129–55.

[18] Maister, Galford, and Green, The Trusted Advisor, 69.

[19] Hoch and Kozlowski, “Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership”

[20] Jarvenpaa and Leidner, “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams.”

[21] Malhotra, Majchrzak, and Rosen, “Leading Virtual Teams.”

[22] Maznevski and Chudoba, “Bridging Space Over Time.”

[23] Malhotra, Majchrzak, and Rosen, “Leading Virtual Teams.”

[24] Matthew J. W. McLarnon et al., “Global Virtual Team Communication, Coordination, and Performance across Three Peer Feedback Strategies.,” Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement 51, no. 4 (October 2019): 207–18, https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000135.

[25] SHRM and Globalization Partners, “2019 CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS OF LOBAL TEAMS — AN HR PERSPECTIVE,” 6. : 17% GVT, 29% Single location team

[26] Roderick Moreland Kramer and Karen S. Cook, eds., Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, The Russell Sage Foundation Series on Trust, v. 7 (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004).

[27] Nordb?ck and Espinosa, “Effective Coordination of Shared Leadership in Global Virtual Teams.”

[28] Daniel Goleman, “Leadership That Gets Results,” Harvard Business Review, March 1, 2000, https://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results.

[29] SHRM and Globalization Partners, “2019 CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS OF LOBAL TEAMS — AN HR PERSPECTIVE,” 7.

[30] RW3 CultureWizard, “Trends in High-Perfoming Global Virtual Team.”

[31] D. A. G. Clark, A.L. Marnewick, and C. Marnewick, “Virtual Team Performance Factors: A Systematic Literature Review,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) (2019 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Macao, Macao: IEEE, 2019), 40–44, https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM44572.2019.8978809.

[32] SHRM and Globalization Partners, “2019 CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS OF LOBAL TEAMS — AN HR PERSPECTIVE,” 6.

[33] SHRM and Globalization Partners, 16.

[34] Norman S. Wright and Glyn P. Drewery, “Forming Cohesion in Culturally Heterogeneous Teams: Differences in Japanese, Pacific Islander and Anglo Experiences,” Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 13, no. 1 (January 2006): 43–53, https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600610643475.

[35] R. Heeks et al., “Synching or Sinking: Global Software Outsourcing Relationships,” IEEE Software 18, no. 2 (April 2001): 54–60, https://doi.org/10.1109/52.914744.

[36] SHRM and Globalization Partners, “2019 CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS OF LOBAL TEAMS — AN HR PERSPECTIVE,” 9.

[37] SHRM and Globalization Partners, 9.

[38] Line Dubé and Guy Paré, “Global Virtual Teams,” Communications of the ACM 44, no. 12 (December 1, 2001): 71, https://doi.org/10.1145/501317.501349; Anders Klitm?ller and Jakob Lauring, “When Global Virtual Teams Share Knowledge: Media Richness, Cultural Difference and Language Commonality,” Journal of World Business 48, no. 3 (July 2013): 398–406, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.07.023.

[39] Klitm?ller and Lauring, “When Global Virtual Teams Share Knowledge.”

[40] SHRM and Globalization Partners, “2019 CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS OF LOBAL TEAMS — AN HR PERSPECTIVE,” 16.

[41] SHRM and Globalization Partners, 16.

[42] RW3 CultureWizard, “Trends in High-Perfoming Global Virtual Team,” 6.

[43] Maznevski and Chudoba, “Bridging Space Over Time”; Malhotra, Majchrzak, and Rosen, “Leading Virtual Teams”; Hoch and Kozlowski, “Leading Virtual Teams.”

[44] Jarvenpaa and Leidner, “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams.”

[45] Clark, Marnewick, and Marnewick, “Virtual Team Performance Factors”; Jarvenpaa and Leidner, “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams.”

[46] Edward T. Hall, Beyond Culture, Anchor Books ed (New York: Anchor Books, 1989); Geert Hofstede, “Culture and Organizations,” International Studies of Management & Organization 10, no. 4 (December 1980): 15–41, https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1980.11656300.

References

Bell, Bradford S., and Steve W. J. Kozlowski. “A Typology of Virtual Teams: Implications for Effective Leadership.” Group & Organization Management 27, no. 1 (March 2002): 14–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601102027001003.

Clark, D. A. G., A.L. Marnewick, and C. Marnewick. “Virtual Team Performance Factors: A Systematic Literature Review.” In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), 40–44. Macao, Macao: IEEE, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM44572.2019.8978809.

Dubé, Line, and Guy Paré. “Global Virtual Teams.” Communications of the ACM 44, no. 12 (December 1, 2001): 71. https://doi.org/10.1145/501317.501349.

Goleman, Daniel. “Leadership That Gets Results.” Harvard Business Review, March 1, 2000. https://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results.

Hall, Edward T. Beyond Culture. Anchor Books ed. New York: Anchor Books, 1989.

Heeks, R., S. Krishna, B. Nicholsen, and S. Sahay. “Synching or Sinking: Global Software Outsourcing Relationships.” IEEE Software 18, no. 2 (April 2001): 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.914744.

Hoch, Julia E., and Steve W. J. Kozlowski. “Leading Virtual Teams: Hierarchical Leadership, Structural Supports, and Shared Team Leadership.” Journal of Applied Psychology 99, no. 3 (2014): 390–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030264.

Hofstede, Geert. “Culture and Organizations.” International Studies of Management & Organization 10, no. 4 (December 1980): 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1980.11656300.

Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L, and Dorothy E Leidner. “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams” 10, no. 6 (December 1999): 26.

Klitm?ller, Anders, and Jakob Lauring. “When Global Virtual Teams Share Knowledge: Media Richness, Cultural Difference and Language Commonality.” Journal of World Business 48, no. 3 (July 2013): 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.07.023.

Kramer, Roderick Moreland, and Karen S. Cook, eds. Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches. The Russell Sage Foundation Series on Trust, v. 7. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004.

Kramer, Roderick Moreland, and Tom R. Tyler, eds. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 1996.

Maister, David H, Robert M Galford, and Charles H Green. The Trusted Advisor. New York; London: Free Press, 2004.

Malhotra, Arvind, Ann Majchrzak, and Benson Rosen. “Leading Virtual Teams.” Academy of Management Perspectives 21, no. 1 (2007): 60–70.

Martins, Luis L., Lucy L. Gilson, and M. Travis Maynard. “Virtual Teams: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here?” Journal of Management 30, no. 6 (December 2004): 805–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.05.002.

Massey, Anne P., Mitzi M. Montoya-Weiss, and Yu-Ting Hung. “Because Time Matters: Temporal Coordination in Global Virtual Project Teams.” Journal of Management Information Systems 19, no. 4, (2003): 129–55.

Maznevski, Martha L., and Katherine M. Chudoba. “Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness.” Organization Science 11, no. 5 (October 2000): 473–92. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.5.473.15200.

McLarnon, Matthew J. W., Thomas A. O’Neill, Vasyl Taras, Denise Law, Magda B. L. Donia, and Piers Steel. “Global Virtual Team Communication, Coordination, and Performance across Three Peer Feedback Strategies.” Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement 51, no. 4 (October 2019): 207–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000135.

Nordb?ck, Emma S., and J. Alberto Espinosa. “Effective Coordination of Shared Leadership in Global Virtual Teams.” Journal of Management Information Systems 36, no. 1 (January 2, 2019): 321–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1558943.

Northouse, Peter Guy. Leadership: Theory and Practice. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2007.

Orhan, Mehmet A. “The Evolution of the Virtuality Phenomenon in Organisations: A Critical Literature Review.” Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 5, no. 4 (2017): 171–88. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2017.050408.

Pullan, Penny. Virtual Leadership: Practical Strategies for Getting the Best out of Virtual Work and Virtual Teams. London ; Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page, 2016.

RW3 CultureWizard. “Trends in High-Perfoming Global Virtual Team,” 2018.

SHRM, and Globalization Partners. “2019 CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS OF LOBAL TEAMS — AN HR PERSPECTIVE,” Spring 2019.

Sinek, Simon. The Infinite Game. 1st Edition. New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2019.

“Status of Telework in the Federal Government Report to Congress,” 2019, 219.

Wright, Norman S., and Glyn P. Drewery. “Forming Cohesion in Culturally Heterogeneous Teams: Differences in Japanese, Pacific Islander and Anglo Experiences.” Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 13, no. 1 (January 2006): 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600610643475.

Internet sources

·        Office for National Statistics, Coronavirus and homeworking in the UK labour market: 2019, https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/coronavirusandhomeworkingintheuklabourmarket/2019, consulted on the 28/06/2020 at 9:5