globalization of the world’s economy

globalization of the world’s economy
The globalization of the world’s economy has driven many organizations to create collaborative configurations in which teams of workers from multiple regions collaborate in synchronous and asynchronous settings. Such virtual teams are not, however, immune to the challenges of navigating cultural issues and work styles. Leadership must take into account not only geographic and time differences, but also interpersonal dynamics that may be culturally-derived.

Design a set of best practices for the leadership of cross-cultural, virtual teams. Consider the following questions in your design:
• What are the challenges posed by cultural diversity among team members? Pay particular attention to the ways in which cross-cultural teams are unique.
• How important is an understanding of the individual cultures represented on the team to successful team management? Should your best practices be culture-specific or apply to cross-cultural management in general? Cite specific examples in your analysis.
• What are the human resource considerations for designing cross-cultural and/or virtual teams? How are considerations for these two groups similar or different?

Reading materials:
1. Symons, J. & Stenzel, C. (2007) ‘Virtually borderless: an examination of culture in virtual teaming’, Journal of General Management, 32 (3), pp.1-17, Business Source Premier [Attached as “reading material 1”]
2. Lee, M.R. (2009) ‘E-ethical leadership for virtual project teams’, International Journal of Project Management, 27 (5), pp.456-463. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.012 [Attached as “reading material 2”]
3. Brett, J., Behfar, K. & Kern, M. (2006) ‘Managing multicultural teams’, Harvard Business Review, 84 (11), pp.84-91, Business Source Premier [Attached as “reading material 4”]
Note: I need some referencing from the attached reading materials, I will add only one today and the other two tomorrow.

Claudia Stenzel
Marketing Manager, IBM Global Technology Services
Improvements in transportation and communication technology and a reduction in economic
and political barriers are amongst the factors that are increasing globalisation. One consequence
of globalisation is that it is encouraging the use of multinational teams. Coupled with the
changing nature of work and continuous improvement in collaborative software, virtual
working in multinational teams is growing in popularity as a cost-e?ective way of operating.
The study of the human resource implications of this new and virtually borderless frontier of
collaborative working is lagging behind the rapidly advancing technology.
This paper distils theory with recent research ®ndings in virtual teaming. This is the term
used to describe project teams working across time and space using electronic media. The
authors contend that the key competencies in successful virtual teaming can be clustered under
the headings of technology, leadership and culture. The paper explores the literature under
these headings, focusing on culture and adding ®ndings from research projects undertaken
independently by the authors with ABB and IBM.1
Introduction ± virtual teaming
Virtual teams are usually characterised by geographically dispersed members
working on a speci®c project using computer-supported collaborative software
to facilitate interaction. The often ad hoc team members are likely to
represent di?erent specialist functions and to have multiple reporting lines.
Uni®ed by the project, they typically use telephone and video conferences, as
well as email and other more sophisticated groupware technologies to communicate.
As Lipnack and Stamps (1997) elegantly describe it, “Virtual teams
work across time and space as well as organizational and cultural boundaries
with links strengthened by webs of communication technologies”. Such is the
1 In 2001 and 2002 Symons studied virtual teaming with 89 middle ranking ABB executives
from 29 di?erent countries. Leaders were emergent. Stenzel’s research in 2004 was focused on
IBM in Europe where the virtual team members were for Central and Eastern Europe, and the
appointed team leaders were mostly from Western Europe.
1±17
John Symons and Claudia Stenzel
2 Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 3 Spring 2007
changing nature of work that human resource activity is becoming increasingly
time independent and the place of work is no longer ®xed. The transition
to the mobile and time-independent workplace has advanced rapidly. The
implications have often been addressed retrospectively. Virtual working
inevitably impacts on factors such as leadership and individual competences,
trust, work/life balance, decision-making, communication, job design, training
and development, and productivity.
Virtual teamwork is potentially dicult because it requires collaboration,
co-operation, co-ordination and commitment from team members who are
working physically apart from each other most of the time. As Zigurs (2003)
describes the problem, the virtual environment is where “Trust is dicult to
build, in¯uence is dicult to express, self-leadership is required and communication
is often ambiguous.” Not surprisingly, understanding how to lead
a virtual team is becoming a fundamental competence for managers in global
organisations (Duarte and Tennant Snyder, 2000; Symons, 2002a). Although
as Symons (2002a) maintains, there is no new paradigm of virtual leadership;
but it is a new “situation”.
Virtual teaming has attractive potential bene®ts. As companies expand
globally, multinational virtual teams promise improved resource utilisation
that is achieved through more ¯exibility, with human resource availability
regardless of physical location. Advantages are seen in terms of competitive
advantage and operating cost reduction (Weick and Van Orden, 1990;
Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999). The performance case is mixed. The concept
of the `working day’ is rapidly becoming meaningless and there are signi®cant
costs attached to technology usage and failures. Other potential downsides
exist. They include: low individual commitment, role overload, role ambiguity,
absenteeism, lack of synergy amongst team members, con¯icts due to dual
or multiple reporting lines, di?erent holidays and working hours, communications
breakdowns due to unreliable technology and cultural variances
(O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen, 1994; Odenwald, 1996; Lipnack and
Stamps, 1997; Jarvaenpaa and Leidner, 1999; Duarte and Tennant Snyder,
2000).
In the predominantly American studies on virtual teams, only a few authors
such as O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen, Odenwald and Duarte and Tennant
Snyder, op. cit., give special attention to the fact that members of multinational
virtual teams have to deal with cross-cultural dispersion, or cultural variability
within domestic teams. Dysfunctional cross-cultural con¯icts amplify the
inherent risks of failure for virtual teams. It is therefore, important for leaders
to understand why and where cross-cultural con¯ict arises and what impact
that may have on teamwork. Through understanding the impact of culture on
team climate, performance can be improved. This paper focuses on culture to
try and understand why people may or may not work successfully together in a
team, rather than on the e?ect on team climate. From the emerging literature
and research on virtual teaming it is possible to cluster the key issues into two
superordinate categories, i.e. leadership and culture, and communication and
technology.
One can conceptualise these categories in di?erent ways. Technology in the
form of computer-mediation is an enabler. It is necessary to enable the
Virtually borderless: an examination of culture in virtual teaming
Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 3 Spring 2007 3
communication between team members; but, as long as the technology works
e?ectively, and the users know what, when and how to use it e?ectively, the
issues of fundamental importance lie in Human Resource Management
(HRM). As Lipnack and Stamps (1997) contend, what it takes to make virtual
teams succeed is 10% technology and 90% people. In multinational companies
the cultural interaction of team members is a critical component of HRM.
Aim and structure of the paper
The aim of this paper is to examine culture in virtual teaming. In so doing, we
cannot logically ignore technology, leadership and communication, for each
will impact on the coherence of our examination of culture. We begin with
technology as the enabler of leadership and culture in virtual teaming. Critical
to the success of virtual teaming are the socio-emotional and task leadership
aspects of communication, which link closely to leadership. In this paper we
will embrace communication within the discussion of leadership. A previous
paper ± Symons (2002a) ± focuses speci®cally on leadership in virtual teams.
Technology
Working in virtual teams has been made possible through the availability of
suitable electronic media. Technology is important as the enabler of virtual
teaming and the virtual team needs to make choices regarding the ecacy of
di?erent media according to the contextual requirements. In relation to our
focus on leadership and culture, it is important to recognise that not everywhere
in the world enjoys the same levels of connectivity, nor is technology
used in the same manner. Thus, communications with a team member in say,
East Africa, which su?ers from poor telecoms, may prove frustrating and
counterproductive. Duarte and Tennant Snyder (2000) suggest that groupware
technology is of little use in resolving interpersonal con¯ict ± especially
when the issues that lead to con¯ict are highly emotional or ambiguous; nor is
it useful when the team is newly formed and trust is not yet built.
On the other hand, technology can provide a certain structure that
facilitates results-oriented team spirit and helps to reduce the high levels of
uncertainty inherent in the virtual environment. Jarvenpaa and Leidner
(1999) contend that electronic media are making cultural di?erences less
noticeable. If true, this is an advantage at the formative stage of a virtual team’s
development because the focus is on perceived similarities amongst team
members, rather than on their di?erences. Exploring similarities and di?erences
is a good foundation for relationship building. However, the disadvantage
is that over time, di?erences may become more obvious and may have a
negative impact. Fragile relationships can be easily destroyed if team members
and leaders do not recognise the cultural diversity. Zigurs (2003) postulates
the establishment of a “distant presence” through the e?ective use of technology
by stating that “leaders need to learn how to use the vividness and
interactivity of media to make their presence felt in a positive way and to
John Symons and Claudia Stenzel
4 Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 3 Spring 2007
exercise appropriate in¯uence to move the team forward.” She also reminds
her readers that people from most cultures prefer familiar practices and do not
adopt new technologies easily. She stresses, as do O’Hara-Devereaux and
Johansen (1994), the importance of providing support for those using the
technology.
Leadership and communication
Throughout history people have tried to ®nd out what makes e?ective leaders.
The search for a universal explanation for what constitutes a good leader
continues. Historically, leadership has been de®ned in arti®cial, theoretical
constructs such as personality traits, behaviour and style, contingency, and
power and in¯uence theories. More recent de®nitions focus on leadership
associated with change management, vision-building or empowerment. In
virtual teaming we are concerned with leadership as a results-oriented process,
rather than leadership as a position. The theory judged to be appropriate for
virtual teaming is increasingly seen as `emergent’ (Symons, 2002a; Yoo and
Alavi, 2003). According to Yoo and Alavi, in a study of 63 US government
agency executives participating in an executive development programme,
emergent leaders in virtual teaming have three roles: initiator, scheduler and
integrator. Without the face-to-face social exchanges and visual clues of
traditional leadership, the emergent leader has to rely more on in¯uence and
facilitation skills. In practice however, Symons (2003) in a study of 89 middle
ranking executives from 29 di?erent countries working for a multinational
company showed that whilst emergent leadership characterised early experiences
of virtual teaming, this was not maintained. Over time, leadership
became less consensual and the senior, dominant or charismatic person
became more signi®cant.
House et al. (2002) examined the inter-relationships between societal
culture, organisational culture and practices as well as organisational leadership.
They discovered that de®nitions and perceptions of leadership vary
considerably from culture to culture. Leadership capabilities that are generally
valued as contributing to outstanding leadership are: dynamism, decisiveness
and honesty, as well as the capacity to motivate and negotiate with others, and
a focus on performance. Generally attributed negative qualities include: being
autocratic, egocentric and irritable. (We see no reason to challenge the validity
of these characteristics with regard to leadership in virtual teaming although it
would be interesting to investigate this further through empirical research).
Ambition, formality, risk-taking and self-e?acement are valued in some
cultures but not in others. Shared leadership, a quality many postulate to be
crucial for virtual teams (Lipnack and Stamps 1997; Duarte and Tennant
Snyder, 2000; Symons, 2002a), may only have relevance in cultures with an
orientation towards equality and ¯exibility. Additionally, attributes such as
communication skills, which are considered to be very important for virtual
team leaders, vary greatly across cultures. Cultural variations are likely to drive
behaviours and those working in, or leading, multinational virtual teams need
to see and understand the phenomena that surround them in order to
understand, change or in¯uence the team’s climate.
Virtually borderless: an examination of culture in virtual teaming
Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 3 Spring 2007 5
Team leaders that have, for example, recognised that members of their
teams demonstrate high levels of uncertainty avoidance2 may want to be
sensitive to their feelings of insecurity, but may not know how to translate that
into action. This could be either because they do not understand the observed
phenomena or because they do not know how to respond. Just as it is often
impossible to identify the root cause of cultural dissonance, so too is it dicult
to ®nd the appropriate managerial behaviour to correct the situation. A
synopsis of the literature, supported by the authors’ research, indicates that
the start of project is critical and that virtual team leaders need to exhibit
certain skills to:
 Select team members appropriate to achieving the task.
 Choose the appropriate computer-mediated technology.
 Get a team started.
 Define the team’s purpose, vision and modus operandi.
 Gain commitment.
 Determine outputs and measures of success.
 Develop a rhythm of communication.
Human communication is an important aspect of virtual teaming and there
is broad consensus in the literature of its signi®cance (e.g. O’Hara-Devereaux
and Johansen, 1994; Odenwald, 1996; Lipnack and Stamps, 1997; Jarvaenpaa
and Leidner, 1999; Duarte and Tennant Snyder, 2000; Symons, 2002a).
Communication builds trust (Jarvaenpaa and Leidner, 1999) and leads to
mutual cultural respect (Duarte and Snyder, 2000). Through communication,
people get a better sense of one another and understand each others’ priorities.
Whilst the competences and challenges of virtual group working have started
to receive attention from (primarily US) researchers, little has been said about
how virtual team leaders can e?ectively encourage positive cross-cultural
behaviour and prevent con¯ict that will damage team and task. It is unlikely
that a virtual team leader can fully meet the expectations of all members of a
multinational virtual team. However, if one agrees that an important “function
of leadership is the creation and management of culture” (Schein, 1992),
then it is a virtual team leader’s signi®cant challenge to build and maintain a
trust-based virtual culture. In theory, this can be done by valuing diversity;
channelling the di?erent expectations and culturally-determined behaviours
of the team members into rich outputs. This requires leadership in the form of
facilitating the adaptation of cultural orientations that create advantage into
the team culture.
2 In a study of virtual team members in IBM Central and Eastern Europe, Stenzel’s (2004)
research argued that the national cultures in central and eastern Europe do not ®t well with the
culture of a virtual team. Team members showed relatively high levels of uncertainty avoidance
with a preference for high context communications. There was a general dislike of shared
decision-making and shared leadership. Stenzel made the link with the culturally embedded,
centralised and controlled Communist work systems and with the countries’ ongoing transition
towards Western democracy and a free-market economy.
John Symons and Claudia Stenzel
6 Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 3 Spring 2007
Trust in virtual teams
Captured by Duarte and Tennant Snyder (2000), there is general agreement
that face-to-face relationships have no equal and that virtual teams are most
vulnerable to dysfunctional con¯ict when team members are unfamiliar with
one another. In a face-to-face environment it is easier to build and sustain
relationships and assess team members’ motivation and trustworthiness.
Almost all the literature on virtual teaming stresses the importance of trust
as the foundation for performance in a virtual environment (O’Hara-
Devereaux and Johansen, 1994; Odenwald, 1996; Lipnack and Stamps,
1997; Jarvaenpaa and Leidner, 1999; Duarte and Tennant Snyder, 2000). In
recent research, Symons (2003) showed that trust was viewed as the single
most critical factor in virtual teaming. Developing trusting relationships in
virtual teams is much more dicult than in face-to-face teams because the
physical presence is missing. In co-located teams, physically observed actions
form the basis for most leadership practices such as feedback, encouragement,
rewards and motivation (Zigurs, 2003). Duarte and Tennant Snyder (2000)
identify three building blocks that must be present to create trust in virtual
teams:
 Performance and competence, which refers to the confidence in the skills
of a person or a group.
 Integrity, which means trust on the basis of credibility and honesty
 Relationship, particularly the concern for the wellbeing of others.
Zigurs emphasises that initial impressions are formed quickly and they
persist even in the face of new evidence, making the development of trust
dicult for team members and leaders that may never meet in person.
Hence, O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen (1994), as well as Duarte and
Tennant Snyder (2000) suggest that it is critical for virtual team leaders to
make personal meetings possible at least at the beginning of the team’s
existence. An alternative view is taken by Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999).
They argue that a face-to-face environment is not necessary, even at the
embryonic stage of a virtual team, if team leaders encourage team
members to focus intensively, openly and thoughtfully on establishing
links across boundaries and on building strong networks. Handy (1995)
argues that trust “needs (physical) touch”, which is almost eliminated in
virtual teams.
Whether teams meet face-to-face or not, we side with Duarte and
Tennant Snyder (2000) who suggest that team leaders acknowledge at a
very early stage of the team’s life that building trust is dicult, and that it
requires everyone’s commitment and e?ort. But we have to recognise that
trust is fragile and dicult to maintain. Building it takes time and
commitment; it can be destroyed irrevocably in a careless moment. Walker
et al. (2002) recommend that team leaders consider activities that support
the establishment of trust indirectly, such as providing individual and
group feedback and placing weight on team contribution and individual
performance. Appropriate remuneration measures may contribute to developing
group-working.
Virtually borderless: an examination of culture in virtual teaming
Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 3 Spring 2007 7
Culture
Dimensions of cultural orientations
Culture is one of the most popular topics in international management
research. It has found its way into most business school programmes and it is
part of most management consultant activities. However, culture remains a
complex phenomenon. One of the most in¯uential authorities in the ®eld of
cross-cultural research is Geert Hofstede. He compares culture to an iceberg
where a proportion is hidden. The visible part of a nation’s culture consists of
observable practices such as behaviours, symbols, rituals, heroes and language
patterns. The below-the-water-line, hidden, bedrock of culture is made up of
mostly intangible elements such as emotions, beliefs and values (Hofstede,
1980). He stresses (Hofstede, 1991) the cognitive nature of culture ± the
notion that culture is our `mental software’: “. . . the collective programming
of the mind that distinguishes members of one human group from another”.
However, unlike computer software, culture operates on both a conscious
and an unconscious level; it is built up and modi®ed over time by the
experiences of an individual or a group and by their social environment. A
similar approach to the examination of cultural variances is that of Trompenaars
and Hampden-Turner (1997). They de®ne culture as “the way in which
a group of people solve problems and reconcile dilemmas.” Like Hofstede,
they focus on national cultural di?erences and classify them along a series of
categories. Some of these cultural categories evolved from a framework
developed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) for analysing di?erences
among cultures. A similar approach was taken by Hall (1966; 1981), whose
model of cultural di?erences focuses primarily on cross-cultural communication,
including his theory on the perception and use of space (proxemics)
and his concept of the culturally determined degree of implicit information in
communication. Bennett (1993) grounds his cultural concept upon di?erences
in communication.
Despite the fact that they use di?erent methods for gathering data, all the
researchers mentioned above follow a nomothetic rather than ideographic
approach (Easterby-Smith and Malina (1999), i.e. they try to describe and
compare prevailing manifestations of culture by breaking them down to a
small number of universally applicable categories ± so-called cultural dimensions.
To analyse and compare the culture of nations or societies they place
them along those cultural dimensions, which are mostly de®ned by opposite
poles that represent the extreme ends of the same continuum. The following
table gives an example of cultural dimension models developed by prominent
cross-cultural researchers and outlines the di?erences and similarities of their
approaches.
Cultural dimensions can be useful parameters for describing culture though
as Bennett (1973) reminds us, nearly all beliefs are represented in all cultures at
all times, but each di?erent culture has a preference for some beliefs over
others. Recent studies (Hansen, 2000; Bolten, 2001; Drechsel et al., 2000)
consider the reduction to abstract cultural generalisations ± even if derived
from large-group research ± as dangerous because they are too easily acceptJohn
Symons and Claudia Stenzel
8 Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 3 Spring 2007
able. They tend to lead to stereotypes and to being applied to individuals. Even
Hofstede (1991) warns that “statements about cultures are not statements
about individuals” and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997), who
focus more on the active role of individuals within a culture than Hofstede
(1980, 1991), stress the importance of understanding the individual in
addition to using generalisations on a country level. Another heavily criticised
shortcoming of the cultural dimensions approach is the fact that it only
describes cultural manifestations and di?erences instead of explaining them.
As a consequence, many cross-cultural training programmes, mostly based on
adaptive learning through stages (Bennett, 1997; O’Hara-Devereaux and
Johansen, 1994; Duarte and Tennant Snyder, 2000; Schmitz, 2003) help
managers to recognise cultural variances.
However, due to lack of explanations necessary for understanding culturally-
determined di?erences in global managers’ attitudes towards a range of
business and management issues, they are not supporting the creation of
cultural knowledge (Bolten, 2001; Hansen, 2000). The most recent crosscultural
literature (especially the literature conducted by researchers focusing
Hofstede Trompenaars and
Hampden-Turner
Kluckhohn and
Strodtbeck
Hall Bennett
power distance
uncertainty avoidance
long-term vs.
short-term
individualism vs.
collectivism
masculinity vs.
femininity
inner direction vs.
outer direction
sequential time vs.
synchronic time
neutrality vs.
a?ectivity
speci®c vs. di?use
individualism vs.
communitarianism
universalism vs.
pluralism
achieved status vs.
ascribed status
subjugated to the
environment vs.
in harmony with it vs.
dominating it
past vs. present vs.
future
being vs. doing
private space vs.
public space
individualism vs.
collaterality vs.
linearity
inherently good vs.
evil vs. mix of both
monochronic time vs.
polychronic time
high context vs. low
context
communication
intimate space vs.
social space vs. public
space
digital languages vs.
analogic languages
linear discussions vs.
circular discussions
direct confrontation
vs. indirect
confrontation
Figure 1: Examples of cultural dimensions de®ned by cross-cultural researchers
Virtually borderless: an examination of culture in virtual teaming
Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 3 Spring 2007 9
on international business culture), stresses the importance of cultural due
diligence. It suggests an ideographic approach in cross-cultural research based
for example on a detailed description and explanation of cultural styles that
include historic, political, economic, social, demographic, religious and legal
aspects; as well as mentality, communication and working styles (Easterby-
Smith and Malina, 1999; Ammon, 2001; Bolten, 2001; Garrison, 2001).
Drechsel et al. (2000) try to combine the di?erent approaches in their
“cultural web” model. Starting from the notion that national as well as
organisational cultures are not static but permanently changing, they focus
less on the single cultural dimensions, which can vary according to the level
(national, organisational or functional level) and more on the relationships
between the cultural dimension ± the cultural web. The cultural styles as well
as the cultural web approach allow for more profound as well as more speci®c
comparison between cultures. Defenders of the cultural dimensions model,
however, argue that despite its tendency towards oversimpli®cation, the
dimensions approach provides a useful framework for navigating through
foreign cultures, especially if one has to deal with people from more than one
culture. The discussion of the di?erent approaches taken by cross-cultural
researchers has shown that all existing models have advantages and disadvantages
and that their usefulness depends heavily on the context in which
they are applied.
Organisational culture
When explaining what impact “deeply rooted” national cultures have on
organisational culture, Hofstede (1991) starts from the notion that the two are
completely di?erent kinds of cultural concepts. Bennett (1993) takes a similar
approach by de®ning two di?erent types of culture: the subjective value-based
culture, the psychological features that make up a group of people and the
objective culture based on behaviour patterns that have become “routinised”.
Hofstede argues that while di?erent values are primarily the origin of cultural
variances at national level, cultural di?erences at organisational level emanate
from the employees’ shared perceptions of practices at the workplace. In other
words, observable practices substantially in¯uence the behaviour of employees,
while organisational values have little impact on the belief systems of
employees.
Mintu (1992) alludes to the con¯ict Hofstede provokes, with the notion
that practices lie at the very heart of organisational culture and not shared
values like most other, mainly American, authors suggest. Writers such as
Peters and Waterman (1982) present IBM as an excellent example of a
powerful corporate culture based on shared values. Ironically, Hofstede’s
survey on IBM shows value di?erences according to the employees’ nationality,
age and education but generates no information on IBM’s organisational
culture. Hofstede’s (1991) explanation for this anomaly is that organisational
shared values always have to be introduced “top down” in order to ensure that
corporate culture is dynamic enough to ®t changing marketplace conditions.
(Morgan 1986; Schein 1992). Hence, organisational culture, if mainly based
John Symons and Claudia Stenzel
10 Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 3 Spring 2007
on values, is the outcome of the shared values of CEOs, managers or founders
of an organisation, and not of the employees.3
Following Hofstede’s theory, Sims and Lorenzi (1992) de®ne organisational
culture as consensual schema, which means that employees have
developed a certain “similarity in the way they cognitively process and
evaluate information”. The approach of O’Neill et al. (1997) towards organisational
culture goes in the same direction, de®ning culture as: “Consensual
schema shared among employees in an organisation, resulting in and from a
pattern of basic assumptions and norms enhancing individual and organisational
stability, manifested in shared meanings, communicated by stories,
myths and practices, and resulting in certain behaviour patterns which are
unique to the organisation.”
Consensual schema imply that behavioural variability of employees can be
reduced if the organisational culture is deep enough, no matter how widely
geographically dispersed the employees (O’Neill et al., 1997.) However, one
can doubt whether organisational con¯ict at corporation, business unit,
department or team level can be successfully reduced ± if this is required at
all ± only through the reduction of behavioural variability and without taking
account of the employees’ di?erent values. This is especially questionable,
since Hofstede, Trompenaars and most other cross-cultural researchers are
putting an emphasis on emotions as the core of a group’s culture. Garrison
(2001) notes that in order to get groups to bond together to achieve common
purposes, much more is needed than the “logic of enterprises”. O’Hara-
Devereaux and Johansen (1994) gain evidence from their research and
experience that national, professional and functional cultures are much
stronger than corporate cultures ± especially since no single organisational
culture can possibly encompass today’s global enterprises.
Some researchers (Smith, 1997; Brodbeck, 2000) who analyse European
leadership styles do not expect a homogenisation of the managerial cultures
but recognise that leaders are becoming more adept at working across
cultures. Practitioners may argue that in Europe there is an increasing
convergence across some borders. Convergence may be accelerated in multinational
companies such as ABB and IBM where, it may be argued, some
aspects of national culture are overridden by corporate culture and values.
Higgs and Morton (2001) draw on Sparrow et al. (1994) to suggest that
multinational corporations in¯uence their “subsidiaries”. They also state that
“it follows that the values and beliefs of the national culture of the parent
company will signi®cantly in¯uence the values of the company’s management
culture.” This is relevant in terms of application, particularly if Adler (1983) is
correct in suggesting that an organisational culture can in¯uence predispositions
towards dealing with di?erences in national cultures. In conclusion, one
can say that a strong organisational culture can help to reduce con¯ict on
3 Stenzel’s study of cross-cultural con¯ict management in IBM Central and Eastern Europe
showed that the multinational organisational culture (of IBM) was of little in¯uence in
comparison with national culture. Her research showed also that cross-cultural con¯ict is
endemic to virtual teams with members from Central and Europe because the national cultures
do not ®t well with the culture of a virtual team.
Virtually borderless: an examination of culture in virtual teaming
Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 3 Spring 2007 11
di?erent levels of an organisation but it cannot fully solve cross-cultural
con¯ict based on the di?erent value systems of groups or individuals. This can
only be achieved through knowledge and understanding of cultural diversity.
Impact of cultural diversity on virtual teams
Handy (1993) believes that certain structures create certain types of culture.
The structure of virtual teams is usually less strong than that of co-located
teams because individual performance cannot be monitored closely, given the
physical dispersion of the team members. O’Neill et al. (1997) hypothesise
that culture can be an e?ective control mechanism in situations where face-toface
interaction is limited due to the geographical dispersion of team
members. Sensitivity and understanding is needed to surface the di?erent
cultural assumptions of team members in facilitating cross-cultural understanding
among team members, and for enabling the creation of a virtual team
culture. Duarte and Tennant Snyder (2000) recommend that virtual team
leaders re¯ect on their own cultural biases and how those a?ect their personal
assumptions and behaviours towards their employees and that they invest
time to become acquainted with the members of their teams. They also stress
the importance of cross-cultural training as “a useful component of team
orientation, no matter how experienced the team members”. Furthermore,
they propose the need for virtual team leaders to establish expectations
regarding accountability, decision-making, responsiveness, deadlines and
feedback.
O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen (1994) suggest that team leaders develop
“third ways” of working i.e. to look for techniques for working and
interacting that do not elevate one cultural approach over another. One
example could be by asking the team members how they would prefer to
work and by agreeing on standard practices. Inevitably, members of virtual
teams will have to simultaneously deviate from their own culturally determined
behaviours and adapt new ones, given the novelty of the virtual team
design and the lack of common “work histories” amongst team members
(Suchan and Hayzak, 2001). The tension between culturally constrained and
newly created behaviours can be balanced to a certain degree when behavioural
variability is reduced, i.e. over time team members adapt shared
patterns and develop routines for processing information, co-ordinating
work and handling rules and norms (O’Neill et al., 1997; Suchan and
Hayzak, 2001).
Taking Hofstede’s view of the value system as the foundation of an
individual’s cultural background into consideration, it is, however, suggested
that all members of virtual teams do at least share the feeling of “globalness”
(Burn and Barnett, 1999; Garrison 2001). Where possible, virtual culture
needs to be “in sync” with the corporate culture and strategy of an organisation
(Neuhauser et al., 2000) to avoid potential con¯ict between di?erent
types of culture. This may be an aspiration that is dicult to achieve in an
organisation that is characterised by several cultures at once; and Go?ee and
Jones (1998) maintain that this is the case with most organisations.
John Symons and Claudia Stenzel
12 Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 3 Spring 2007
Con¯ict in multinational virtual teams
Just as con¯ict exists wherever people interact with each other, so too is it likely
to be present within virtual teams: dysfunctional a?ective con¯ict which is
generally seen as directed at individuals, and cognitive con¯ict which is often
viewed as critical to a team’s e?ective performance.
Basing their ®ndings on Cameron and Quinn’s Competing Value Model,
Duarte and Tennant Snyder (2000) suggest that cognitive con¯ict arises in
teams because “every group has shared and competing values and assumptions”.
If groups or individuals have di?erent values and assumptions of an
Cultural orientations* Con¯ict in virtual teams due to:
Control vs. harmony vs.
constrain
Di?erent levels of responsiveness, commitment, self-control and self-eciency.
Single-focused vs.
multi-focused
Di?erent approaches to tasks (one at a time vs. several at a time)
Fixed vs. ¯uid Di?erent importance given to schedules.
Past vs. present vs.
future
Di?erent perceptions of what are useful results that motivate (long-term gains vs. shortterm
gains).
Being vs. doing Di?erent expectations in terms of rewards and motivation (skills acquired over time, lifelong
job, good relationships etc. vs. quickly earned money).
High context vs.
low context
Di?erent communication styles (focus on information-rich, often non-verbal face-to-face
communication vs. explicit, fact-oriented, less personal communication).
Direct vs. indirect Di?erent communication styles (implicit vs. direct meanings).
Expressive vs.
instrumental
Di?erent communication styles (personal, emotional, network centred vs. problem
centred, pragmatic, impersonal).
Formal vs. informal Di?erent attitude towards etiquette (protocols vs. progress).
Private vs. public Di?erent preferences in terms of physical and psychological space .
Hierarchy vs. equality Di?erent attitude towards authority (powerful leaders and clear task assignment vs. shared
leadership and decision-making).
Universalistic vs.
pluralistic
Di?erent attitudes towards rules (valuing the universally applicable rule more than the
unique situation or relationship and vice-versa).
Individualistic vs.
collectivistic
Di?erent de®nitions of identity (the individual and/against the group vs. the individual as
part of the group).
Competitive vs.
co-operative
Di?erent perceptions of adequate behaviour within a group and di?erent motivations (job
performance vs. quality of life).
Order vs. ¯exibility Di?erent levels of structure needed (insecurity in uncertain, unknown situations vs. risk
taking).
Inductive vs. deductive Di?erent approaches towards conceptualisation (methodology: how to do vs. theory: why
to do).
Linear vs. systemic Di?erent approaches towards thinking (fragemented vs. holistic).
*Adapted from TMC Model, used with permission, Copyright Training Management Corporation, 2003.
Figure 2: Potential cross-cultural con¯ict areas
Virtually borderless: an examination of culture in virtual teaming
Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 3 Spring 2007 13
issue they care about, then their values and assumptions may compete and
create con¯ict. In multinational virtual teams this is exacerbated by ethnocentrism
(the inability to observe and interpret clues of other cultures) that
leads groups and individuals to believe that they and others with whom they
share the same cultural background are better than average and hence, by
de®nition correct in their views (Bennett, 1993). Nonetheless, when con¯ict is
properly managed, culturally diverse teams are more likely to engage in
innovative `out-of-the-box’ thinking, given their di?erent life experiences in
diverse social environments (Duarte and Tennant Snyder, 2000).
In 1995 the Princeton based Training Management Corporation (TMC), a
consulting ®rm specialised in cross-cultural management, introduced the
Cultural Orientation Model. It combines key dimensions-based cultural
concepts `into ten cultural dimensions. Each of the ten dimensions is divided
into two or more continua, which then de®ne a number of di?erent cultural
orientations (Walker et al., 2002; Schmitz, 2003). The model is a useful tool for
identifying drivers for con¯ict amongst people from di?erent national
cultures and is therefore applicable to multinational virtual teams. Figure 2
provides an overview of drivers for cross-cultural con¯ict in virtual teams. The
following is an example of how to apply culture to virtual teaming: American
culture is considered to be control focused, ¯exible in terms of structure,
present and doing oriented, low context, direct, instrumental and informal in
communication, where linear inductive thinking dominates and where people
that believe in equality, individualism and competition prefer a certain
distance between themselves and others. Communication is relatively impersonal,
fact-centred, and informal. If it is an accurate representation (and
there is a danger of stereotyping), this characterisation of achievement (rather
than relationship-orientation) would help a virtual team with a US participant
to recognise cultural di?erences. It is not surprising that the internet and
working formats based on information technology have been led from the
USA where progress, drive and discovery are highly valued.
Transforming cross-cultural con¯icts into synergy
Inevitably, people from cultures that do not match (or match less) with the
concept of virtual teaming will have to devote more e?ort to deviating from
their own culturally determined behaviours. It is likely that those working in
virtual teams will have to adopt new behavioural patterns that ®t better with
the needs of the virtual world (Neuhauser et al., 2000). Newcomers may need
help to get used to new (synchronous and asynchronous) technologies, to
recognise emergent leadership and to trust people without meeting them
physically. There is an interesting paradox, at least on the surface, that virtual
teams tend to be loosely structured, yet as O’Neill et al. (1997) recognise, they
require high levels of autonomy from the team members. This might pose a
problem with appointed leaders but as Lipnack and Stamps (1997) recognise
“virtual teams that are highly self-motivated and self-managed are leader-full,
not leader-less”. This is a persuasive argument for harnessing emergent
leadership. Lipnack and Stamps (1999) point towards a double bottom line
John Symons and Claudia Stenzel
14 Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 3 Spring 2007
in the working of teams: the visible task result on the one hand and the social
outcome based on team interactions on the other. It is with a view to learning
and improvement that Duarte and Tennant Snyder (2000) recommend the
keeping of logs or (electronic) journals to record actions and re¯ections.
Tracking what works and what doesn’t work helps create problem-awareness
and helps team leaders to prevent cross-cultural con¯ict from occurring, or at
least minimises its presence.
Such tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1967) rooted in individual experiences,
beliefs and values, is an important basis for organisational learning. “The
individuals’ emotions, feelings, and mental modals have to be shared to build
mutual trust” (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Making implicit knowledge
(which is often hard to formalise and communicate because it is personal and
context-linked) explicit (externalisation) and sharing it systematically provides
important feedback for virtual working. In this way, explicit organisational
knowledge can be acquired through individual context-speci®c
re¯ection. Innovation for organisational bene®t is then likely to follow.
Conclusion
For Christians, the creation of mankind is explained in the Bible. In Genesis we
are told that those on earth spoke initially one language, until man built the
Tower of Babel. Such was God’s displeasure at this construction reaching into
the heavens that he “confused their language and scattered them abroad”.
Communication and technology
 Recognise that technology is an enabler; successful virtual teams are about people
not technology.
 Effective virtual teams need good communications skills.
 The project leader needs to help define a team’s purpose and modus operandi, as
well as helping team members to communicate effectively.
 Where possible, face-to-face meetings are better for resolving conflict.
Leadership and culture
 Imposed leadership may be less successful than shared or emergent leadership.
 Virtual teaming may appear to reduce cultural differences. But a process of cultural
`due diligence’ is valuable at the start of a virtual project team’s existence to help
team members recognise and value differences (e.g. differences around data
handling, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, high or low context preferences,
handling of confrontation).
 Virtual teams work on trust. Creating a culture of trust involves credibility,
convergence, committment, concern, competence, confidence and consensus.
 Understand the individuals and their values in the virtual team rather than accepting
a perception of a national cultural stereotype.
 Value diversity and find `third ways’ of working.
Figure 3: Key points for managers when using virtual teams
Virtually borderless: an examination of culture in virtual teaming
Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 3 Spring 2007 15
Electronic media seem to be uniting (or reuniting for those who accept the
Bible story) mankind in a lingua franca not experienced since the origin of our
species. Through electronic media we are becoming virtually borderless.
But the uni®cation through computer-supported collaborative media will
not happen e?ectively without concern for working practices in the virtual
team. Virtual teaming is di?erent from face-to-face working. It relies heavily
on trust and the recognition of cultural di?erences. Virtual teaming o?ers
richer cultural diversity as conventional borders disappear and project teams
are formed across time and space. The diversity can be harnessed to improve
the team’s output but, particularly in the forming stage of a new team, it
requires time to be devoted to preparing the foundations for cross-cultural
understanding. Team members then need to remain vigilant for signs of
cultural dissonance which can corrode and diminish the advantages of virtual
teaming. Key points discussed in this article are summarised in Figure 3 in the
superordinate categories referred to in the introduction.
Some cultures are more predisposed to virtual teaming than others. For
example, as Stenzel’s research has shown, a greater mind shift is required of
virtual team members from the former Communist countries of Central and
Eastern Europe. As to leadership, the evidence is beginning to indicate that a
facilitative, emergent form of leadership is appropriate to multicultural virtual
teaming. However, as technology improves and virtual working replicates
more closely the face-to-face environment it is likely that the situational
di?erences will diminish. We are likely to behave virtually as we do face-toface.
References
Adler, N. (1983), `Cross cultural management issues to be faced’, International studies of
management and organisation, Vol. 13, pp. 7±45.
Ammon, G. (2001), Der Wirtschaftsstil: Ein Instrument zur Analyse fremder Volkswirtachaften,
in: Bolten, J. and SchroÈter, D. (eds.), pp. 143±154.
Bennett, M. J. (1993), `Towards Ethnorelativism: A Development Model of Intercultural
Sensitivity’, in: Paige, R. M. (ed.), Education for Intercultural Experience, pp. 21±71, ME:
Intercultural Press.
Bolten, J. (2001), `Kann man Kulturen beschreiben oder erklaÈren, ohne Stereotypen zu
verwenden? Einige programmatische UÈ berlegungen zur kulturellen Stilforschung’, in:
Bolten, J. and SchroÈter, D. (eds.) 2001, pp. 128±142.
Bolten, J. and SchroÈter, D. (eds) (2001), Im Netzwerk interkulturellen Handelns, Theoretische
und praktische Perspektiven der interkulturellen Kommunikations-forschung, Sternenfels:
Wissenschaft und Praxis.
Brodbeck, F. (2000), `Cultural Variation of Leadership Prototypes Across 22 European
Countries’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 1±29.
Burn, J. and Barnett, M. (1999), `Communication for Advantage in the Virtual Organization’,
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 215±222.
Drechsel, P. and Schmidt, B. and GoÈlz, B. (2000), Kultur im Zeitalter der Globalisierung: Von
IdentitaÈt zu Di?erenzen, Frankfurt a. M: IKO.
Duarte, D. and Tennant Snyder, N. (2000), Mastering Virtual Teams: Strategies, Tools, and
Techniques that Succeed, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Easterby-Smith, M. and Malina, D. (1999), `Cross-cultural Collaborative Research: Towards
Re¯exivity’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 76±86.
Garrison, T. (2001), International Business Culture, Huntingdon: ELM Publications.
John Symons and Claudia Stenzel
16 Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 3 Spring 2007
Go?ee, R. and Jones, G. (1998), The character of a corporation: How your company’s culture can
make or break your business’, NY: Harper Collins.
Hall, E. T. (1966), The Hidden Dimension, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1981), Beyond Culture, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Handy, C. (1995), `Trust and the Virtual Organization’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73, No.
3, pp. 40 -50.
Handy, C. (1993), Understanding Organisations, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Hansen, K. P. (2000), Kultur und Kuturwissenschaft, TuÈbingen/Basel: Francke/UTB.
Higgs, M. and Morton, S. (2001), `The alignment of organisational and national cultures with
business strategy: a case study exploration’, Henley Working Paper 0110, Henley Management
College.
Hofstede G. (1980), Culture’s Consequence: International Di?erences in Work-related Values,
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Hofstede G. (1991), Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind, London: McGraw Hill.
House, R. J. and Javidan, M and Hanges, P. and Dorfman P. W. (2002), `Understanding
Cultures and Implicit Leadership Theories Across the Globe: An Introduction to Project
GLOBE’, Journal of World Business, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 3±11.
Jarvenpaa, S. L. and Leidner, D. (1999), `Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams’,
Organisational Science, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 791±815.
Kluckhohn F. R. and Strodtbeck F. L. (1961), Variations in Value Orientations, Evanston: Row,
Peterson and Company.
Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J. (1997), Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time and Organizations
with Technology, NY: John Wiley.
Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J. (1999), `Virtual Teams’, Executive Excellence, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 14±
15.
Mintu, A. (1992), `Review of Hofstede’s Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind’,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 362±365.
Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organisation, London: Sage.
Neuhauser, P. C., Bender, R. and Stromberg, K. L. (2000), Culture.com: Building Corporate
Culture in the Connected Workplace, NY: John Wiley.
Nonaka, I. and Takenchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.
Odenwald, S. (1996), Global Solutions for Teams, Moving from Collision to Collaboration, IL:
Irwin Professional Publishing.
O’Hara-Devereaux, M. and Johansen, R. (1994), GlobalWork; Bridging Distance, Culture and
Time, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
O’Neill, J. W. and Beauvais, L. L. and Scholl, R. W. (1997), `A Structure and Culture Model of
Organizational Behavior and Variability Reduction’, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Academy of Management, www.cba.uri.edu, retrieved September 2003.
Polanyi, M. (1967), The Tacit Dimension, NY: Anchor Books.
Peters, T. J. and Waterman, J. R. (1982), In Search of Excellence, London: Harper and Row.
Schein, E. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schmitz, J. (2003), Cultural Orientations Guide: The Roadmap to Building Cultural Competence,
Princeton: Princeton Training Press.
Sims, H. P. and Lorenzi P. (1992), The New Leadership Paradigm: Social Learning and Cognition
in Organizations, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Smith P. B. (1997), `Leadership in Europe: Euro-management or the Footprint of History?’,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 375±386.
Sparrow, P. Schuler, R. and Jackson, S. (1994), `Convergence and divergence: HR practices and
policies for competitive advantage worldwide’, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, May, Vol. 5, pp. 267±295.
Stenzel, Claudia. (2004), `Culture and Virtuality ± An investigation into the global virtual team
leadership with speci®c reference to cultural issues ± illustrated by the example of the Central
and Eastern Europe Organisation of IBM’, Unpublished MBA Dissertation, Henley Management
College.
Virtually borderless: an examination of culture in virtual teaming
Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 3 Spring 2007 17
Suchan, J. and Hayzak, G. (2001), `The Communication Characteristics of Virtual Teams’, IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 174±86.
Symons, J. (2002a), `Critical Success Factors in Leading Virtual Teams’, Henley Working Papers
0214, Henley Management College.
Symons, J. (2002b), `Learning to Lead Online: The New Challenge’, e-learning age, February,
pp: 44±45.
Symons, J. (2003), `Is virtual working really di?erent?’, e-learning age, October, pp. 42.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner C. (1997), Riding the Waves of Culture, London:
Nicholas Brealey.
Walker, D. M. and Walker T. and Schmitz (2002), Doing Business Internationally: The Guide to
Cross-Cultural Success, NY: McGraw Hill.
Weick, K. E. and Van Orden, P. W. (1991), `Organizing on a Global Scale’, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 49±61.
Yoo, Y. and Alavi, M. (2003), `Emergent leadership in virtual teams: what do emergent leaders
do?’, Information and organization, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 27±58.
Zigurs, I. (2003), `Leadership in Virtual Teams: Oxymoron or Opportunity?’, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 339±351.
John Symons is Associate Professor, School of Management Knowledge and Learning at Henley
Management College, and a Sloan Fellow of the London Business School. He has researched and
written extensively on leadership, learning and management development since 1991. In the
past 12 years he has focused on these subjects in relation to electronic media. He is presently
developing a course on Ethics which will be delivered through technology-mediated communication.
Claudia Stenzel is the marketing manager for IBM Global Technology Services, Southwest
Europe based in Germany. Claudia undertook her MBA at Henley Management College and for
her Dissertation researched aspects of Virtual Teaming with a particular interest in the “new
accession” countries of Eastern Europe.
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

You can place an order similar to this with us. You are assured of an authentic custom paper delivered within the given deadline besides our 24/7 customer support all through.