Search results

The team members’ expertise has been shown to increase team effectiveness when it is actively coordinated. While in face-to-face teams such expertise coordination unfolds through direct interaction, expertise coordination in dispersed teams is unlikely to evolve automatically. In this context, shared leadership, that is, the distribution of leadership influence across multiple team members is argued to serve as initiating mechanism for expertise coordination.

Dispersed multinational teams include people from multiple nations, some of whom are not collocated. In a knowledge economy, such teams must locate, store, allocate, and retrieve knowledge. Three central questions are: (a) How can dispersed multinational teams manage knowledge resource flows? (b) What factors influence knowledge resource distribution in these teams? and (c) How do dispersed multinational teams evolve over time? This chapter examines knowledge resource sharing in multinational teams through three theoretical lenses: transactive memory theory, collective action theory, and evolutionary theory, and concludes with practical suggestions for managing dispersed multinational teams that are derived from these three theoretical lenses.

As a way to enable employees to work distantly, teleworking has gained a growing interest in companies. At the same time, management challenges regarding the teleworkers’ risk of isolation, coupled with the need to maintain cohesion for the dispersed team, to give an example, are various. How can management practices help to maintain adequate levels of perceived proximity for a dispersed team’s members? The purpose of this paper is to answer this question. Referring to a particular person’s perception of how close or how far another person is, the concept of perceived proximity is mobilized. This Telecom case study is based on 22 interviews with human resources directors, managers and teleworkers. While the results of this study appear to corroborate empirically the theoretical model as proposed by O’Leary et al. (2014), they also propose nuances, highlighting the importance of the interpersonal relationship to expand the perceived proximity and stressing the need for both distant and face-to-face exchanges. They also help to understand which management practices can influence perceived proximity. In particular, they help to understand the role of communication and collective identity and support the importance of the e-leader. Finally, the results highlight two remote management modes that will be discussed elaborately.

The authors conducted a single in-depth case study of Telecom as a unique case study; it is useful to analyze new and complex phenomena for which theoretical development is emerging and the consideration of the context is essential (Yin, 2013). In total, 22 interviews were conducted with the human resources directors, managers and teleworkers. Lasting between 40 and 130 min each, the interviews were all fully transcribed and analyzed using an iterative thematic content analysis. The authors first manually analyzed the data on the basis of the social regulation theory to interpret the local and the combined regulation (that is say to how the managers and the teleworkers co-build the rules to work being distant) the telework implied between managers, teleworkers and their co-workers (Authors, 2018). Two emerging codes led the authors to reinterpret the data, compared to the initial interpretative framework. The authors thus transformed the coding and recoded the 22 interviews (Bacharach et al., 2000, p. 713; cited by Gibbert et al. 2010, p. 58) around the objective/subjective working time and information and communication technology (ICT) use and the perceived proximity: shared identity and perceived proximity, and communication and perceived proximity.

First, the level of ICT use and the accompanying objective and subjective perceptions with regard to working time are reported and positive perceptions for the employees are determined because of the timing flexibility the ICT determines. Second, the ICT use is presented in relation to the managerial and collegial proximity perceived. Third, the authors discuss the shared identity processes that influence the proximity perceived, followed by the characteristics of the communication process, being the fourth one. As such, the results lead to a valuable input that enables to critically reflect on the e-leader roles, resulting in two emerging management modes seen as a continuum in terms of shared identity: the “e-communicational” mode signals the re-foundation of management in situations of distance based on the personality of the e-leader that influences the team members in terms of communicational and organizational behaviors; and the control management mode that is based upon objectives in a situation of being distant, illustrated by managers who regulate the work made by the distant team in monitoring the objectives without sharing the experience of telework.

The results corroborate empirically with the theoretical model by Boyer O’Leary et al. (2014), while putting into perspective the complexity to manage the inter-subjectivity that is related to distance. More specifically, the results show that even if the ICT use leads to a new balance regarding time management for teleworkers – increasing their quality of life perceptions, with a better organizational flexibility – that is to say, a “win-win” configuration, the ultimate success of such a configuration depends on sound management practices. In this sense, the authors propose to enrich their model (Figure 3, p. 33). More extensive research will test two new moderating variables. At first, the results put in evidence the core role of e-management (e-communicational vs control), with a potential moderator effect on the relationship between objective distance and shared identification, on the one hand, and communication, on the other hand. Another result is the potential moderator effect of the ICT use on the relationship between perceived proximity and relationship quality. The nuances proposed support some recent studies arguing that distant communication (versus face-to-face) may inhibit geographically distributed team performance without consideration of the way the teams use ICT to ensure their cohesion and performance (Malhotra and Majchrzak, 2014).

These conclusions result into important management recommendations to support dispersed teams with how to cope with challenges such as the risk of delayed communication, possible misinterpretations, limited information richness and great conflicts (Zuofa and Ochieng, 2017).

Compared to the unique empirical application of the Boyer O’Leary et al.’s framework (2014), who found no differences existing in terms of proximity perceived with the study of 341 “geographically present” dyads with 341 “geographically distant,” this study’s results show that the construction of the feeling of proximity depends on a fragile balance between virtual and face-to-face exchanges. The authors also highlight the role of an e-leader in this regard and identify and compare two modes of remote management.

Leadership is a crucial driver of project performance. While traditionally, the project leader was considered as the exclusive source of leadership behavior, recent research indicates that particularly dispersed projects may profit from joint leadership efforts by all project members. However, leadership functions in dispersed projects are likely to differ from those in a face-to-face context. In this chapter, we specify shared leadership functions for the domain of geographically dispersed project teams with high levels of task uncertainty. Arguing that shared leadership in dispersed teams occurs through interrelation of individual and team actions, we specify a dispersed screening function as well as self-, other-, and team-directed interrelation functions and develop propositions on how these functions are related to project performance. Furthermore, we point to motivational aspects of shared leadership and discuss the role of the vertical leader in developing and facilitating shared leadership.

Despite increase in industry use of dispersed teams, understanding has lagged on how to manage knowledge effectively and efficiently in a dispersed structure. The main purpose of this paper is to map this domain by reviewing two streams of literatures ‐ the knowledge‐based view of the firm and the dispersed work. The aim, also, is to examine the implications of dispersed knowledge work on firms, especially knowledge intensive firms that are increasingly conducting dispersed work.

The literatures are reviewed and analyzed to examine why accessing and creating knowledge is problematic in dispersed work arrangements.

The findings raise the issue of understanding the important dynamics of the fit between the structure (dispersed versus face‐to‐face) and the strategy for managing dispersed knowledge (codification versus personalization strategy).

The paper is a useful resource for managers seeking to discern the social and technological interventions needed for conducting knowledge work in different types of knowledge‐intensive firms.

This paper is among the early works to organize the two streams of literatures. The paper shows that virtual work may not necessarily be virtuous for all kinds of dispersed knowledge work. In order to realize the virtues of geographic distance, firms need to consider their competitive strategies and their outcomes of interest.

To provide information to managers on training geographically dispersed teams to enhance communication and productivity.

Practical advice is offered on methods of managing geographically dispersed teams. The discussion pays attention to what actions need to take place before, early on, and during the team’s life. The discussion also distinguishes between methods to enhance inter‐member communications to enhance trust among members and team organization, task and leadership issues.

Advises on guidelines a dispersed team manager can use to enhance team trust, communications and performance.

Offers guidance and steps to managing dispersed teams within a time framework.

This paper delves into the complexities of daily dispersed tech team dynamics and aims to understand the underlying reasons for the challenges that such teams face. Through personal observations and analysis, this paper aims to identify communication barriers and propose actionable insights and strategies for improvement.

By leveraging personal insights and observations from the IT HR field from three different countries, information and data was collected. Such personalized approach allowed for a deeper exploration of real-world scenarios, how physically dispersed teams work and what challenges they struggle with. A comprehensive examination of the issues faced by tech teams operating globally also allowed to observe the noteworthy outcomes that could bring the best benefit for such teams.

As geographically dispersed tech teams continue to gain popularity, understanding the challenges that the teams might face and the potential ways of solving them become As HR as well as team managers roles now evolve, flexibility becomes paramount for navigating global team dynamics.

This paper is a contemporary call for action to stimulate management, enlightening them on the requisites for establishing and cultivating high-performing teams that work across geographical boundaries. There is a lack of understanding of what challenges physically dispersed teams face and to what degree those challenges impact the teams. This paper addresses this deficiency.

Studies of distributed leadership (DL) are increasing, but are not systematic, often taking a normative position emphasizing the superiority of DL to solo leadership and using the term in an imprecise way. The purpose of this paper is to re-conceptualize DL and develop a systematic framework to identify dimensions of DL and their association with team effectiveness.

Based on a comprehensive review of existing literature, this paper develops a systematic framework of DL and team effectiveness by deriving eight research propositions.

Based on two perspectives, role space occupation and dependency of actions, the paper identifies four main dimensions of DL: shared, conjoint, fragmented and dispersed leadership, each of which represents a specific pattern of DL activities. A leader-task-context (LTC) framework is developed to analyze outcomes of DL dimensions in different settings. The eight propositions developed clearly identify where DL can be best applied, how particular configurations of DL affect team performance, and in what situations it is most effective.

This paper has made several contributions. First, the authors address the question of what constitutes DL by conceptualizing its dimensions. Second, the authors extend the DL literature by arguing and modeling how different contexts influence the fulfillment of DL. Third, the authors develop an analytical framework of DL – the “LTC” framework – to help build a foundation and guide further research on the relationships between DL and team performance.

This paper aims to highlight that there are different levels of analysis and that there are different types of influence on the choice of R&D location and organization. Specifically, the purpose of the paper is to identify geographically dispersing and contracting forces on R&D activities, which helps bring together these two theoretical fields.

A case study approach is chosen, as data are obtained from multiple levels and perspectives. Through theoretical sampling, 47 cases were identified, and 14 selected to be included in the study. The main source of information was semi‐structured interviews.

Four dispersing and contracting forces were identified as being the most influential on the choice of a company's R&D location. The four forces each have different implications at different levels of analysis (strategic, organizational and project levels) and lead to different geographical results concerning a company's R&D location.

The paper is based on a limited sample.

R&D organization and localization are an area with different consequences, depending on which organizational level is involved and the perspective taken.

The paper brings together two schools of thought (globalization literature and communication theory) and, by doing so, improves the understanding of a complex phenomenon and reduces the risk of drawing faulty conclusions.

Purpose – We explore two characteristics of groups in today's work environments, membership dispersion and geographic dispersion, and the effects that these conditions have on group and organizational learning.

Approach – We integrate findings on group membership dispersion and geographic dispersion and develop predictions of dispersion's effects on group learning, incorporating the literature on knowledge transfer, transactive memory, turnover, and communication.

Findings – Members in multiple work groups, while exposed to knowledge from different areas, have weaker group identities and are more adversely affected by time constraints than members who belong to only one group. Group members can be dispersed sequentially through turnover, which creates more knowledge-retention problems than those experienced by stable groups. Members of geographically dispersed groups are in positions to integrate novel knowledge. The necessary use of technology to communicate, however, reduces the ability of geographically dispersed group members to convey ideas as effectively as their collocated counterparts. Geographically distributed group members experience less common ground and more difficulty in transferring knowledge, especially tacit knowledge, than their collocated counterparts.

Originality/value – We discuss how membership and geographic dispersion pose challenges to and provide opportunities for group learning. We suggest how learning within dispersed groups can be supported as well as what the future holds for the role of these groups in the new economy. The chapter concludes that although membership and geographic dispersion pose challenges to learning at the group level, these conditions enable learning at the level of the organization.