Hybrid Virtual Teams in Shared Services Organizations: Thomas Afflerbach

Progress in IS
Thomas Afflerbach
Hybrid Virtual
Teams in
Shared Services
Organizations
Practices to Overcome the Cooperation
Problem
Progress in IS
“PROGRESS in IS” encompasses the various areas of Information Systems in
theory and practice, presenting cutting-edge advances in the field. It is aimed
especially at researchers, doctoral students, and advanced practitioners. The series
features both research monographs that make substantial contributions to our state
of knowledge and handbooks and other edited volumes, in which a team of experts
is organized by one or more leading authorities to write individual chapters on
various aspects of the topic. “PROGRESS in IS” is edited by a global team of
leading IS experts. The editorial board expressly welcomes new members to this
group. Individual volumes in this series are supported by a minimum of two
members of the editorial board, and a code of conduct mandatory for all members
of the board ensures the quality and cutting-edge nature of the titles published under
this series.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10440

Thomas Afflerbach
Hybrid Virtual Teams

in Shared Services
Organizations
Practices to Overcome the Cooperation
Problem
123
Thomas Afflerbach
Department of Cooperative Studies
Berlin School of Economics and Law
University of Applied Sciences
Berlin, Germany
An earlier version of this manuscript has been submitted as my doctoral thesis at the
University of Konstanz, Germany
ISSN 2196-8705 ISSN 2196-8713 (electronic)

Progress in IS
ISBN 978-3-030-34299-9 ISBN 978-3-030-34300-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34300-2
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
For my wife Katharina, my son Jonathan
and my parents Jörg and Annette
Preface
Virtual teams are increasingly common in companies. Especially in Shared Services

Organizations, the number of hybrid virtual teams has risen significantly in recent
years. At the same time, companies have to conquer the challenge to enable such
teamwork to flourish. Virtual teamwork is fraught with problems of cooperation.
Thus, the teams in Shared Services exemplify the contextual challenges most virtual
teams have to overcome today: distance through physical separation and subgroup
formation, imposed reliance on communication technology and temporary team
composition, all which compound the problem of cooperation. Yet, it is still unclear
how the cooperation problem actually manifests and how members of such teams
experience those contextual challenges of distance, technology and temporality in
their day-to-day working life. The traditional solution to the cooperation problem—
managerial control—is notoriously difficult in this setting as the virtual context
poses severe challenges for supervision. Hence, more decentralized and construc-
tive solutions, particularly identification, trust and peer monitoring, are likely to be
of prime importance for overcoming problems of cooperation. However, our
understanding of how identification, trust and peer monitoring can be used in the
virtual team setting to foster cooperation is limited. Especially, as it is still uncertain
whether technology helps or hampers the members in virtual teams to use these
solutions to overcome the cooperation problem. In the study presented in this book,
I theoretically and empirically showcase the contextual challenges of ‘faultlines
through distance’, ‘disconnection through communication technology’ and
‘discontinuity through temporality in team composition’, which all originate from
the context of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations and may put
the cooperation at risk. I also show how members of such teams can use twenty-two
different practices to foster cooperation in a virtual environment and thus foster
cooperation, even in such a challenging context. These practices can be categorized
as strategies of ‘identity constructing’, ‘trusting’ and ‘virtual peer monitoring’.
vii
viii Preface
Thereby, technology may facilitate but not ensure the use of these strategies and
practices to foster cooperation. In sum, the study presented in this book offers novel
and distinctive knowledge on how team members can overcome the cooperation
problem in hybrid virtual teams, which is valuable for theory and practice.
Berlin, Germany Thomas Afflerbach

Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Theory: Challenges for Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
2.1 Research Context: Hybrid Virtual Teams in Shared Services
Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.1 Relevance and Definition of Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.2 Relevance and Definition of Virtual Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.3 Conceptualizing Hybrid Virtual Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.4 Shared Services Organizations as a Challenging Context
for Hybrid Virtual Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
2.2 Challenges of Hybrid Virtual Teams in Shared Service
Organisations Leading to Cooperation Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
2.2.1 Defining the Cooperation Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
2.2.2 Challenges for Cooperation in Hybrid Virtual Teams
in Shared Service Organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40
3 Theory: Solutions to Foster Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.1 Overview: Sensitizing Concepts to Foster Cooperation . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2 Identification to Foster Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.2.1 Identification and Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.2.2 Conceptualizing Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.2.3 Identification in Virtual Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.3 Trust to Foster Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.3.1 Trust and Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.3.2 Conceptualizing Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.3.3 Process-View on Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.3.4 Context-Sensitive Trust-Theories for Virtual Teams . . . . . . 66
ix
x Contents
3.4 Peer Monitoring to Foster Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3.4.1 Peer Monitoring and Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.4.2 Conceptualizing Peer Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.4.3 Peer Monitoring in Virtual Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.1 Overall Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.2 Field Research Inspiried by Organisational Ethnography . . . . . . . . 89
4.2.1 Introducing Organisational Ethnography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.2.2 Sampling: GlobalMobility and GlobalTech . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.2.3 Data Collection: Interviews, Observation and Document
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98
4.3 Expert Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.3.1 Sampling: Consultants with Virtual Team and Shared
Services Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.3.2 Data Collection: Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4.3.3 Transcription and Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5 Findings: Expressions of Contextual Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.1 Overview: Data Structure of Challenging Context . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.2 Context of Hybrid Virtual Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.2.1 Introduction to the Expressions of Contextual Challenges
in Hybrid Virtual Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.2.2 Faultlines Through Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.2.3 Disconnection Through Communication Technology . . . . . 123
5.3 Context of Shared Services Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
5.3.1 Introduction to the Expressions of Contextual Challenges
in Shared Services Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
5.3.2 Discontinuity Through Temporality of Team
Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
6 Findings: Practices to Foster Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.1 Overview: Data Structure of Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.2 Strategy of Identity Constructing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
6.2.1 Relationship-Related Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.2.2 Task-Related Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.3 Strategy of Trusting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
6.3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
6.3.2 Checking as Active Trust Enablement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
6.3.3 Signalizing Trustworthiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
6.3.4 Co-creating Ability-Based Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Contents xi
6.3.5 Co-creating Benevolence-Based Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

6.3.6 Co-creating Integrity-Based Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
6.4 Strategy of Virtual Peer Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
6.4.1 Computer-Aided Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
6.4.2 Establishing a Positive Monitoring Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
7 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
7.1 The Sociomaterial Impact of Technology on the Deployment
of Strategies and Practices to Foster Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
7.2 Theoretical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
7.2.1 The Importance of Contextualizing Challenges
for Teamwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
7.2.2 Strategies and Practices for Cooperation in Hybrid
Virtual Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
7.3 Practical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
7.4 Empirical Implications, Limitations and Future Research . . . . . . . 197
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
List of Figures
Fig. 2.1 Conceptualization of hybrid virtual teams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16

Fig. 2.2 Faultlines and subgroups in hybrid virtual teams. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
Fig. 4.1 Overview of qualitative research design.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89
Fig. 6.1 Trusting to overcome the cooperation problem in hybrid
virtual teams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
xiii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Overview of contextual challenges of hybrid virtual teams

in Shared Services Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
Table 2.2 Media capabilities in Media Synchronicity Theory. . . . . . . . . .. 36
Table 4.1 Overview of similarities and variations of GlobalMobility
and GlobalTech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94
Table 4.2 Overview of sample and informants at GlobalMobility
and GlobalTech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99
Table 4.3 Overview of data collection at GlobalMobility
and GlobalTech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Table 4.4 Sample of expert interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Table 4.5 Transcription notation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Table 4.6 Steps in qualitative content analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Table 5.1 Data structure of challenging context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Table 6.1 Data structure of practices to foster cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Table 7.1 Comparison of media at GlobalMobility and GlobalTech
and their capabilities to support the strategies and practices
for cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
xv
Chapter 1
Introduction
Working in virtual teams1 is quickly becoming the rule rather than the exception
(Zander et al. 2012: 592). In the near future, up to 80% of the companies with over
10,000 employees (Hoch and Kozlowski 2014) will deploy such geographically,
timely and organizationally dispersed teams, which interact predominantly through
electronic communication technology (Maznevski and Chudoba 2000; Kanawat-
tanachai and Yoo 2002). One main reason for virtual teams becoming a common
mode of working is that they enable companies to leverage the competences of their
knowledge-workers across distance and time (Henttonen and Blomqvist 2005).
One organizational context, where the number of virtual teams has increased
significantly in recent years is the Shared Services Organization (Friedman 2005;
Howcroft and Richardson 2012). According to a current statistic, 85% of Fortune 100
companies deploy Shared Services in varying configurations (Soalheira and Timbrell
2014: 68). Because of today’s global competitive pressure to improve operating
efficiency (Nixon et al. 2004), organizational management harmonizes their ‘back-
office activities’ (Knol et al. 2014: 93), e.g. IT, Human Resource or Finance, in one
organizational unit, so that services previously performed in multiple parts of the
organization are now shared. Thereby, the organizational management has to strike
the balance between customer focus and economies of scale, wherefore they create
team-based structures of local business partners and employees in central hubs. The
consequence of such a global distribution of work (Kumar et al. 2009) are hybrid
virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations, i.e. teams which are geographically
dispersed and which collaborate with some team members predominantly through
communication technology, but can maintain face-to-face contact with others.
1 Within the virtual team literature stream, the term ‘virtual team’ is commonly used to describe teams
which are either purely virtual teams or hybrid virtual teams. The main differentiator between those
two types of virtual teams is the geographic location and the reliance on communication technology
(see Sect. 2.1). In the study presented in this book, the research context is hybrid virtual teams, yet
I also ground my theoretical reflections on literature, which more generally refers to virtual teams
without differentiating between purely or hybrid virtual teams.
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

T. Afflerbach, Hybrid Virtual Teams in Shared Services Organizations,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34300-2_1
2 1 Introduction
Despite their popularity, virtual teams are fraught with problems of cooperation
and organizations have to master the challenge to enable such teamwork to flourish.
Research has shown that experiences with virtual teamwork are mixed, because fun-
damental difficulties to organize their cooperative efforts exist (Lipnack and Stamps
2000; Piccoli and Ives 2003). To put it differently, process losses due to withhold-
ing of effort seem to be a persistent feature of virtual teams (Chidambaram and
Tung 2005; Suleiman and Watson 2008: 291). As Kidwell and Bennett (1993: 430)
note, withholding of effort or social loafing “describes a person who provides less
than maximum possible participation or effort due to motivation and circumstance”.
Virtual teams are especially prone to suffer from social dilemma situations due to cir-
cumstantial, i.e. contextual, reasons. Such contextual challenges have been linked to
environmental difficulties in which virtual team members interact (e.g. Chidambaram
and Tung 2005: 151).
More precisely, hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations exem-
plify the contextual challenges most virtual teams encounter today: (1) breakdowns
in cooperation due to physical separation, leading to subgroups and an emotional
distance between team members (e.g. Hinds et al. 2014); (2) imposed reliance on
communication technology requiring the team members to accomplish a fit between
media capabilities and the needs of cooperation to avert lapses of communication
and to overcome the feeling of disconnection (e.g. Dennis et al. 2008), and (3) a
temporality of interaction, as for instance caused by high turnover-rates of 20–30%
in Shared Services Organizations (Schwarz 2014; Howcroft and Richardson 2012).
Hence, many teams are more fluid and have to cope with a temporal composition
(Tannenbaum et al. 2012). Yet, such temporality makes the social exchange more
task-oriented and less personal (Bakker et al. 2016). Yet, for none of the aforemen-
tioned three contextual challenges we comprehensively know how they actually find
expression and are experienced on a day-to-day basis by the members of such teams.
Based upon this observation, in the study presented in this book, I derive respective
sensitizing concepts of contextual challenges related to distance, technology and
temporality to be insight-leading concepts throughout the study.
Moreover, in virtual teams, the risk of a cooperation problem is not only partic-
ularly high, but also difficult to manage. Traditionally, the cooperation problem has
been referred to as one of the core managerial tasks (Miller 1992; Pfeffer 1997), which
has been addressed by formal managerial control (Weibel 2007). In face-to-face man-
ual work, the conventional ways to ensure cooperation and to solve social dilemmas
were direct supervision and punishment (Frost et al. 2010: 127). Yet, the context of
virtual knowledge work poses severe supervising problems to managers (Alnuaimi
et al. 2010). In addition, as team members work more self-managed nowadays, it
becomes a task of the team to ensure cooperation (Zigurs 2003). Team members also
have more frequent contact with their peers and are therefore in a better position to
evaluate and manage the cooperation as compared to supervisors. Thus, the mem-
ber’s willingness to take joint responsibility for their work process is critical to the
success of virtual teams (Carte et al. 2006: 323).
However, our knowledge on how members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared
Services Organizations can overcome the cooperation problem is limited. Hence, I
1 Introduction 3
theoretically derive sensitizing concepts for solutions to foster cooperation despite

those contextual challenges. I select three team-based and constructive solutions,
which possess empirical evidence to positively relate with cooperation in teams: first
identification, second trust and third peer monitoring.
First, when individuals identify with each other, this promotes cooperative behav-
ior, as studies have demonstrated a positive relationship between identification and
cooperation (e.g. Dukerich et al. 2002: 507), team cohesion (Jehn et al. 1999: 741)
and work motivation (e.g. Jehn et al. 1999: 741; Van Dick and Wagner 2002: 129).
Team identification refers to “the process by which individual team members per-
ceive themselves in terms of the values, goals, attitudes, and behaviors they share with
other team members” (Janssen and Huang 2008: 70–71). Multiple studies offer results
about the positive outcomes once identification is established. Yet, even though such
identification in virtual teams promises laudable benefits for enabling cooperation
across distance (e.g. Wiesenfeld et al. 1999; Fiol and O’Connor 2005), how identifica-
tion can be established in virtual teams is rarely addressed. Important antecedents to
identification, especially a perceived superordinate identity (Argote and Kane 2009)
or a perceived proximity (Wilson et al. 2008), are either primarily studied in face-
to-face contexts or are only theoretical conceptualizations. Hence, how members of
virtual teams can establish identification is understudied.
Second, trust increases cooperation and improves team members’ willingness to
contribute to effective teamwork (De Cremer et al. 2001; Henttonen and Blomqvist
2005). “Because trust facilitates informal cooperation and reduces negotiation costs,
it is invaluable to organizations” (Williams 2001: 377). Trust is essential for virtual
teamwork as well, because trust is “the glue that holds most cooperative relationships
together” (Lewicki and Bunker 1996: 129). Trust allows to facilitate successful
knowledge sharing and engaged interaction even across geographical boundaries
(Jarvenpaa et al. 1998; Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999; Henttonen and Blomqvist
2005). Numerous scholars perceive trust to be a particularly important variable in
virtual teamwork, because “trust buffered members from the leaky, incomplete,
unpredictable, and at times chaotic processes that are characteristic of global virtual
team interaction” (Jarvenpaa et al. 2004: 262–263). Even though there is a consensus
that trust is beneficial for the cooperation in virtual teams, previous research has
focused mostly on only one specific form of trust in virtual teams: swift trust (e.g.
Crisp and Jarvenpaa 2013). Thus, our understanding of traditional forms of trust is
limited for virtual teams. Moreover, context-specific theories are necessary, because
“trust takes different forms across many different settings, and (…) trust-building and
trust-maintenance processes vary across them as well” (Kramer and Cook 2004: 17).
In addition, not only in the context of virtual teams, but in teams in general, the pro-
cess of trusting has been empirically studied only a few times so far (Nikolova et al.
2015). Thereby trusting as a social process can be the link between trustworthiness
cues and the level of trust, a link, which is not defined yet (Schoorman et al. 2007;
Möllering 2013). Yet, the cues are still unknown, which determine the perception of
trustworthiness of interaction partners in the context of virtual teams. Further, our
knowledge is limited about how trust actually enfolds in such a relationship, how
the granting of trust may be facilitated and what role the social interactions between
4 1 Introduction
individuals play. Furthermore, no study specifically addresses the question of how

the process of trusting finds expression in the context of virtual teams.
Third, peer monitoring offers the chance to promote cooperation within teams,
because it helps to limit opportunistic behavior of co-workers (Long and Sitkin 2006).
Even when individuals identify with each other and have a trustful relationship, “a
certain level of monitoring is necessary no matter how high the trust within a team
becomes”. Hence, it would be “naïve” to completely omit to monitor (Langfred
2004: 387). Yet, our understanding of monitoring each other to “keep track of fellow
team members’ work while carrying out their own (…) to ensure that everything is
running as expected and (…) to ensure that they are following procedures correctly”
(McIntyre and Salas 1995: 23) needs to be revisited for the virtual teamwork, where
members of a team do not see each other. But research focusing on peer monitoring
in virtual teams is scarce. Some researchers assume, that peer monitoring will be
different in virtual teams (Loughry 2010), others hypothesize that the virtual context
limits team members’ ability to monitor (e.g. Gibson and Gibbs 2006; Muethel et al.
2012) or, in contradictory, that electronic communication will expand the possibil-
ities of monitoring peers (Kirsch et al. 2010). Yet, no empirical study specifically
addresses the question of how members of virtual teams use peer monitoring to foster
cooperation.
The overarching goal of the study presented in this book is to expand our under-
standing of how cooperation can be fostered in the challenging context of hybrid
virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations. To achieve this, I develop sensitiz-
ing concepts of contextual challenges related to distance, technology and temporality
to theoretically sensitize for the challenging context of such teams. Likewise, I deploy
sensitizing concepts of solutions to foster cooperation related to identification, trust
and peer monitoring as approaches, which may offer the chance for members of
hybrid virtual teams in Shared Service to foster cooperation despite those contextual
challenges. To move beyond the broad theoretical concepts, I then conduct empirical
research to answer the following research questions:
(1) How do members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations
experience the contextual challenges of distance, technology and temporality?
(2) How do members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations use
identification, trust and peer monitoring to overcome the cooperation problem?
(3) How does technology enable members of hybrid virtual teams to use identifica-
tion, trust and peer monitoring?
To answer those three research questions, I run an in-depth qualitative study
inspired by organizational ethnography. The sample comprises two multinational
companies (GlobalMobility and GlobalTech) deploying Shared Services teams. In
those two companies I conducted qualitative interviews with twenty-five members
of hybrid virtual teams and three group discussions. Furthermore, I spend a total of
eighteen observation days at different locations of the hybrid virtual teams within
GlobalMobility and GlobalTech and complemented the field research with a doc-
umentary analysis. In parallel to the field research there, I conducted ten expert
1 Introduction 5
interviews to acquire context knowledge and to ‘zoom out’ of the immersive field
research.
Based upon the theoretical and empirical findings, the study presented in this book
enriches cooperation, virtual team, trust, identification, peer monitoring and Infor-
mation Systems research in numerous ways. For instance, the study showcases thir-
teen different expressions of contextual challenges categorized in ‘faultlines through
distance’, ‘disconnection through communication technology’ and ‘discontinuity
through temporality of team composition’, which may lead to cooperation prob-
lems of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations. In a similar context-
sensitive manner, this is the first study to expound twenty-two different practices to
foster cooperation in a challenging team context. These practices can be categorized
in ‘strategy of identity constructing’, ‘strategy of trusting’ and ‘strategy of virtual
peer monitoring’ and can be used by members of such teams to foster cooperation.
Lastly, I contribute to Information Systems literature by analyzing the role of tech-
nology to foster cooperation in hybrid virtual teams. Thereby, I show how technology
can facilitate, but not ensure, the use of strategies and practices to foster coopera-
tion and therewith extend the rather material, technology-driven perspective of the
Media Synchronicity Theory with a sociomaterial perspective of technology at the
workplace.
This book is structured into eight chapters. The subsequent Chap. 2 starts with an
explanation of the research context with a definition of teams, virtual teams and hybrid
virtual teams and then provides an introduction to the context of Shared Services
Organizations, wherein hybrid virtual teams are deployed frequently. Afterwards, I
will introduce the challenge of cooperation in teams in general and hybrid virtual
teams in particular. I will focus on the contextual challenges related to distance,
technology and temporality as sensitizing concepts, as they may be most relevant
and impactful for the hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations under
study. In Chap. 3, based upon the selection criteria of team-based and construc-
tive solutions with empirical evidence to positively relate with cooperation, I will
display three solutions to foster cooperation as sensitizing concepts: identification,
trust and peer monitoring. In the subsequent Chap. 4, I will present my research
design, details about the sample comprising informants from two different compa-
nies as well as experts, and then the data collection and data analysis procedures. In
the findings section, Chaps. 5 and 6, I will first display the findings regarding the
expressions of the contextual challenges. Then, I will present the strategies, which
the members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations employ to
overcome the cooperation problem: (1) identity constructing, (2) trusting, and (3)
virtual peer monitoring. Each of these three strategies comprises diverse practices
to foster cooperation. In Chap. 7, I will discuss the findings, starting with the role
of technology and whether it helps or hampers the deployment of the strategies and
practices to foster cooperation. The same chapter will also comprise the theoretical
and practical implications on how contextual challenges leading to cooperation prob-
lems are experienced and how members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services
Organizations use strategies and practices to foster cooperation, a critical reflection
6 1 Introduction
about the limitations of this study and suggestions for future research. In the conclud-
ing Chap. 8, I will summarize the overall findings by answering the three research
questions of the study presented in this book.
References
Alnuaimi, O. A., Robert, L. P., & Maruping, L. M. (2010). Team size, dispersion, and social loafing
in technology-supported teams: A perspective on the theory of moral disengagement. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 27(1), 203–230.
Argote, L., & Kane, A. A. (2009). Superordinate identity and knowledge creation and transfer in
organizations. Knowledge Governance, 166–190.
Bakker, R. M., DeFillippi, R. J., Schwab, A., & Sydow, J. (2016). Temporary organizing: Promises,
processes, problems. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1703–1719.
Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual
teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15(4), 323–343.
Chidambaram, L., & Tung, L. L. (2005). Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social
loafing in technology-supported groups. Information Systems Research, 16(2), 149–168.
Crisp, C. B., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2013). Swift trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Personnel
Psychology, 12, 45–56.
De Cremer, D., Snyder, M., & Dewitte, S. (2001). ‘The less I trust, the less I contribute (or not)?’
The effects of trust, accountability and self-monitoring in social dilemmas. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 31(1), 93–107.
Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes:
A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575–600.
Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder:
The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of
physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3), 507–533.
Fiol, C. M., & O’Connor, E. J. (2005). Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams:
Untangling the contradictions. Organization Science, 16(1), 19–32.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. Macmillan.
Frost, J., Osterloh, M., & Weibel, A. (2010). Governing knowledge work: Transactional and
transformational solutions. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 126–136.
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic
dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451–495.
Henttonen, K., & Blomqvist, K. (2005). Managing distance in a global virtual team: the evolution of
trust through technology-mediated relational communication. Strategic Change, 14(2), 107–119.
Hinds, P. J., Neeley, T. B., & Cramton, C. D. (2014). Language as a lightning rod: Power contests,
emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in global teams. Journal of International Business
Studies, 45(5), 536–561.
Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural
supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390.
Howcroft, D., & Richardson, H. (2012). The back office goes global: Exploring connections and
contradictions in shared service centres. Work, Employment & Society, 26(1), 111–127.
Janssen, O., & Huang, X. (2008). Us and me: Team identification and individual differentia-
tion as complementary drivers of team members’ citizenship and creative behaviors. Journal
of Management, 34(1), 69–88.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in
global virtual teams. Journal of management information systems, 14(4), 29–64.
References 7
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams.
Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Shaw, T. R., & Staples, D. S. (2004). Toward contextualized theories of trust: The
role of trust in global virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 15(3), 250–267.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field
study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44(4), 741–763.
Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 11(3), 187–213.
Kidwell, R. E., & Bennett, N. (1993). Employee propensity to withhold effort: A conceptual model
to intersect three avenues of research. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 429–456.
Kirsch, L. J., Ko, D. G., & Haney, M. H. (2010). Investigating the antecedents of team-based clan
control: Adding social capital as a predictor. Organization Science, 21(2), 469–489.
Knol, A., Janssen, M., & Sol, H. (2014). A taxonomy of management challenges for developing
shared services arrangements. European Management Journal, 32(1), 91–103.
Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (Eds.). (2004). Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and
approaches. Russell Sage Foundation.
Kumar, K., van Fenema, P. C., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2009). Offshoring and the global distribution
of work- Implications for task interdependence theory and practice. Journal of International
Business Studies, 40(4), 642–667.
Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual
autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 385–399.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships.
Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, 114–139.
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: People working across boundaries with technology.
New York: Wiley.
Long, C. P., & Sitkin, S. B. (2006). Trust in the balance: How managers integrate trust-building and
task control. Handbook of trust research, 87–106.
Loughry, M. L. (2010). Peer control in organizations. In S. B. Sitkin, L. B. Cardinal, & K. B.
Bijlsma-Frankema (Eds.), Organizational control (pp. 324–361). Cambridge University Press.
Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team
dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11(5), 473–492.
McIntyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and managing for team performance: Emerging
principles from complex environments. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and
decision making in organizations (pp. 9–45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, G. (1992). Managerial Dilemmas. The political economy of hierarchy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Möllering, G. (2013). Process views of trusting and crises. In Bachmann, R., & Zaheer, A. (Eds.).
(2013). Handbook of advances in trust research (pp. 285–305). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Muethel, M., Siebdrat, F., & Hoegl, M. (2012). When do we really need interpersonal trust in
globally dispersed new product development teams? R&D Management, 42(1), 31–46.
Nikolova, N., Möllering, G., & Reihlen, M. (2015). Trusting as a ‘leap of faith’: Trust-building
practices in client–consultant relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(2), 232–
245.
Nixon, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Lee, H. U., & Jeong, E. (2004). Market reactions to announcements
of corporate downsizing actions and implementation strategies. Strategic Management Journal,
25(11), 1121–1129.
Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for organization theory: Problems and prospects. Oxford
University Press.
Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2003). Trust and the unintended effects of behavior control in virtual teams.
MIS quarterly, 365–395.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust:
Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354.
8 1 Introduction
Schwarz, G. (2014). Public shared service centers: A theoretical and empirical analysis of US
public sector organizations (Vol. 16). Berlin: Springer.
Soalheira, J., & Timbrell, G. (2014). What is shared services? In Shared services as a new
organizational form (pp. 67–84). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Suleiman, J., & Watson, R. T. (2008). Social loafing in technology-supported teams. Computer
Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 17(4), 291–309.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing—Are research
and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 2–24.
Van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2002). Social identification among school teachers: Dimensions, foci,
and correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 129–149.
Weibel, A. (2007). Formal control and trustworthiness: Shall the twain never meet? Group and
Organization Management, 32(4), 500–517.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (1999). Managers in a virtual context: The experience
of self-threat and its effects on virtual work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
6, 31.
Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust
development. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 377–396.
Wilson, J. M., Boyer O’Leary, M., Metiu, A., & Jett, Q. R. (2008). Perceived proximity in virtual
work: Explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies, 29(7), 979–1002.
Zander, L., Mockaitis, A. I., & Butler, C. L. (2012). Leading global teams. Journal of World Business,
47(4), 592–603.
Zigurs, I. (2003). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity? Organizational Dynamics,
31(4), 339–351.
Chapter 2
Theory: Challenges for Cooperation
Virtual teams,1 especially hybrid virtual teams, are very popular within organiza-
tions today and are the prevalent setup in Shared Services Organizations. But as the
following elaborations will show, a successful cooperation between the members of
such teams may likely be at risk. Such cooperation problems usually arise through
motivational and/or circumstantial reasons. Yet, as this context may be particularly
challenging, in the study presented in this book I focus on the latter one and identify
three contextual challenges as sensitizing concepts to better understand the circum-
stantial reasons for cooperation problems in hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services
Organizations. Hence, I will start this chapter with a definition of teams and vir-
tual teams to then conceptualize hybrid virtual teams. Afterwards, I will present the
Shared Services Organizations as an example for a particularly challenging context
for hybrid virtual teams. Then, I will define the cooperation problem in such teams
and introduce the three sensitizing concepts of contextual challenges related to dis-
tance, technology and temporality. Thereby, I will outline how each of them may
compound the cooperation problem between the members of hybrid virtual teams in
Shared Services Organizations.
1 Within the different literature streams with reference to virtual teams, the term ‘virtual team’ is
commonly used to describe teams, which are either purely virtual teams or hybrid virtual teams.
The main differentiator between those two types of virtual teams is the geographic location and
the reliance on communication technology. Hence these types of virtual teams are distinct and
potentially differeing team dynamics may unfold because of those different context conditions.
Yet, throughout the study presented in this book, I will also ground my theoretical reflections on
literature, which more generally refers to virtual teams without differentiating between purely or
hybrid virtual teams, because such reflections will still provide a theoretical sensitivity and potential
answers to phenomena in hybrid virtual teams.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34300-2_2
10 2 Theory: Challenges for Cooperation
2.1 Research Context: Hybrid Virtual Teams in Shared

Services Organizations
Teams are very relevant within today’s organizations, but while there is a certain
consensus of how ‘traditional’ teams are defined, the definition of virtual teams is
more fine-grained. Specifically, the team’s virtualness needs to be understood on a
continuum between ‘face-to-face’ and ‘purely virtual’. Most of the virtual teams can
be found somewhere in the middle and are actually so-called ‘hybrid virtual teams’.
Characteristic for these teams is the mixture of some team members being collocated
with each other, while other team members are dispersed. To understand hybrid
virtual teams, it is necessary to (1) understand ‘traditional’ teams in order to then,
(2) determine the specific attributes of virtual teams, before (3), I will conceptualize
hybrid virtual teams.
2.1.1 Relevance and Definition of Teams
To accomplish organizational success, the number of organizations deploying team-

based structures increases incessantly. “Basically, all work inside firms is teamwork”
(Frost et al. 2010: 126), but working with teams can go two ways: (very) success-
ful or (totally) fail. Because teams are the building blocks of modern organizations
(Mathieu et al. 2013) and have become the most common form of organizational
collaboration nowadays (Salas et al. 2008), it is essential for organizations to foster
successful teamwork. Organizations install team-based structures to cope with the
growing complexity of the environment, which they and their employees have to deal
with in their day-to-day business (Katzenbach and Smith 1993) and in order to address
the variety of the organizations’ most challenging and urging needs (Tannenbaum
et al. 2012a: 2). For example, the risen competition, shortened life-cycles, increased
customer requirements combined with the technology developing at a dizzy speed
and all this topped off with globalization create an environment characterized by
the need to constantly innovate and enhance the products and services organizations
bring to the global market (e.g. Leenders et al. 2003). Quite often, this requires the
completion of work that is too complex, uncertain and non-routine to be managed by
a single individual (Dawson et al. 2008; Rulke and Galaskiewicz 2000). Therefore,
organizations bring together different individuals with a diverse set of skills, back-
grounds, experiences and functional expertise (Bunderson 2003; Dahlin et al. 2005).
Once those individuals are brought together as a team, those structures promise to
offer greater adaptability, productivity and creativity than one individual alone could
accomplish (e.g. Gladstein 1984; Hackman 1987). In addition, team-based structures
promise to compile more innovative, elaborated and comprehensive solutions for the
problems of the organization (Sundstrom et al. 1990). Ideally, the efforts within the
team lead to synergies and release an energy and team performance that is greater
than the sum of its individual parts (Adler 2007: 108; Frost et al. 2010: 126).
2.1 Research Context: Hybrid Virtual Teams in Shared Services … 11
Despite the popularity and necessity of team-structures in a dramatically changing

social and business environment, there has been only little change since Alderfer’s
(1977, 1987) early and very popular definition about teams (or groups2 respectively):
a team is a bounded and stable set of individuals interdependent for a common
purpose (Alderfer 1977; Cohen and Bailey 1997; Hackman 1987; Sundstrom et al.
1990; Offermann and Spiros 2001). According to another common, yet more detailed,
definition, teams
exist to perform organizationally relevant tasks, share one or more common goals, interact
socially, exhibit task interdependencies, maintain and manage boundaries, and are embed-
ded in an organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team, and influences
exchanges with other units in the broader entity. (Kozlowski and Bell 2003: 334)
These two exemplarily definitions are a good representation of a very wide range of
quite similar understandings of teams. Based on that, some scholars have summarized
the most common attributes, which most team definitions share (e.g. Devine 2002;
Hollenbeck et al. 2012; Tannenbaum et al. 2012a; Wageman et al. 2012b; Wildman
et al. 2012):
(1) Stable set of individuals, assigned solely or primarily to that team: A team
consists of two or more people who usually have a definable and stable mem-
bership. In addition, team members are aware of their membership. The team
stays intact, even if the membership changes (e.g. Alderfer 1987; Salas et al.
1992; Devine et al. 1999; Joshi and Roh 2009).
(2) Interdependency, working on fairly well defined and consistent tasks: The
members of the team are interdependent in the execution of their work, usually
with a common purpose, which is either given to them or determined by the team
itself (e.g. Alderfer 1987; Salas et al. 1992; Cohen and Bailey 1997; Bell and
Kozlowski 2002; Devine 2002; Kozlowski and Bell 2003; Tannenbaum et al.
2012a).
(3) Shared common goals: The members of the team share a common goal and
are jointly responsible for the team’s outcomes (e.g. Alderfer 1977; Hackman
1987; Salas et al. 1992; Cohen and Bailey 1997; Devine 2002; Kozlowski and
Bell 2003; Tannenbaum et al. 2012b).
(4) Embedded in an organizational context and manage boundaries: The mem-
bers of the team work together in a common organization, while collectively
managing their relations across and between organizational boundaries (e.g.
Hackman 1987; Devine 2002; Kozlowski and Bell 2003; Tannenbaum et al.
2012a).
These four attributes of teams provide a good foundation to differentiate team-
structures from other types of relationships between individuals within organizations.
It further helps to develop a shared understanding of which attributes virtual teams
and traditional teams may have in common and where they are distinct.
2 Different streams of literature have either deployed the term ‘team’ (e.g. empowered teams and team
effectiveness) or the term ‘group’ (e.g. group cohesion, group dynamics and group effectiveness;
Guzzo and Dickinson 1996) in the attempt to stress certain aspects, such as e.g. ‘groupness’ (e.g.
Katzenbach and Smith 1993; Cohen and Bailey 1997). Yet, for the present research the two terms
are used interchangably.
2.1.2 Relevance and Definition of Virtual Teams
One type of team, which can frequently be found in today’s organizations, is the
virtual team. It contains some of the aforementioned attributes of all teams, yet the
respective definition of this specific type of team puts an emphasis on the aspect of
teamwork across boundaries.
As companies expand globally, facing increased time compression in product
development and delivery, while trying to make use of more foreign-based labor
(Peters 1992; Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999), virtual teams3 are seen as a means to
address many of the organization’s needs of today’s business environment. Virtual
teams promise improved resource utilization, because they allow organizations to
leverage dispersed intellectual capital at potentially lower costs and allow to benefit
from talent and knowledge from anywhere in the world, which can address the
problems and finish tasks on a 24/7 schedule. Moreover, virtual teams offer the
chance to gain access to local resources and markets, resulting in enhanced work
unit performance, better responsiveness and flexibility to meet ever-changing task
requirements and customer demands. All these promises can lead to a competitive
advantage in a highly turbulent, very dynamic and fierce global business environment
companies are confronted with (Snow et al. 1996; Mowshowitz 1997; Jarvenpaa and
Leidner 1999: 791; Sole and Edmondson 2002; Malhotra et al. 2007; see Martins
et al. 2004 for a review).
Moreover, scholars claim that working in virtual teams “is fast becoming the rule
rather than the exception” for employees in contemporary corporations (Zander et al.
2012: 592). In 2000, surveys recorded that fewer than 50% of companies use virtual
teams within their organizations. Already in 2008, the situation looks completely
different as over 65% of the companies acknowledged that their reliance on virtual
team structures will ‘mushroom’ in the near future. Bolstering these numbers, another
study forecasted that in companies with over 10,000 employees the spread of virtual
teams will soon reach a level of 80% (Hoch and Kozlowski 2014). In addition, more
than a decade ago, another survey already revealed that 85% of senior managers
carry out more than 50% of their work in teams, which span across boundaries of
time and space (Maznevski and Athanassiou 2006). The advances in information
and communication technology are the key enablers for the constitution of virtual
teams (Davidow and Malone 1992; Jarvenpaa and Ives 1994). Taking the recent
‘technological jumps’ into account, it is reasonable to expect that the relevance of
global virtual teams is likely to even further increase in contemporary corporations
worldwide (Zander et al. 2013). Furthermore, it is quite common for organizations
nowadays to not exclusively rely on virtual teams for their core processes anymore,
but to also deploy virtual teams for the non-core activities. Specifically, while vir-
tual teams used to be a common phenomenon for research and development units,
3 The qualifiers ‘virtual’, ‘dispersed’, ‘distributed’, ‘far-flung’ or ‘global’ have all been used to
specify teams that span across multiple geographical locations and rely on information technology
to accomplish their objectives. In my research, I use the term ‘virtual teams’ to represent this
construct.
knowledge management and strategic analysis or product and software (Espinosa

et al. 2007; Malhotra and Majchrzak 2004; Maznevski and Chudoba 2000), the
scope of application is expanding to include teams executing support processes and
non-core functions.
Yet, despite the prevalence of virtual teams in the corporate world, for the field of
academia, some authors emphasize that (globally dispersed) virtual teams are “new
organizational forms [which] are surfacing more quickly than [research] scholars are
able to study them” (Zander et al. 2012: 592).
One of the first ‘popular’ virtual team’ definitions was written by the two US-
American practitioners Lipnack and Stamps (1997). Prior to actually defining virtual
teams, the two emphasize, that a virtual team is like any team first of all a group of
people who interact through interdependent tasks, with members being mutually
accountable and they are all guided by a common purpose. Then, the two authors
elaborate that “unlike conventional teams, a virtual team works across space, time,
and organizational boundaries with links strengthened by webs of communication
technology” (Lipnack and Stamps 1997: 7). Only shortly after that, in another article,
the same two authors Lipnack and Stamps (1999: 17) merge the two aforementioned
aspects into one definition and define virtual teams as
teams with a common purpose that use technology to cross time zones, distance, and the
boundaries of organizations.
Adopting the definition of Lipnack and Stamps (1997, 1999) as well as being
inspired by Maznevski and Chudoba (2000: 473) conceptualization, Cramton (2001:
346) very similarly defines virtual teams as
geographically dispersed teams are groups of people with a common purpose who carry
out interdependent tasks across locations and time, using technology to communicate much
more than they use face-to-face meetings.
When putting the aforementioned attributes of ‘traditional’ teams (see Sect. 2.1.1)
in relation with the attributes of virtual teams, it becomes evident that they share the
four attributes of teams ((1) group of individuals, (2) interdependency, (3) shared
common goal and (4) embedded in organizational context), but in addition virtual
teams comprise the following two specific attributes:
(5) Geographic dispersion: The members of the team may be geographically dis-
persed (e.g. Lipnack and Stamps 1997, 1999; Townsend et al. 1998; Jarvenpaa
and Leidner 1999; Maznevski and Chudoba 2000; Cramton 2001; Johnson et al.
2002).
(6) Reliance on communication technology: The members of the team predomi-
nately rely on electronic communication technology rather than on face-to-face
communication to accomplish their tasks (e.g. Lipnack and Stamps 1997, 1999;
Townsend et al. 1998; Maznevski and Chudoba 2000; Cramton 2001).
To theoretically identify these six attributes of virtual teams helps to realize
that virtual teams are actually ‘traditional’ teams with the additional attributes of
geographic dispersion and reliance on communication technology.
2.1.3 Conceptualizing Hybrid Virtual Teams
To comprehensively understand hybrid virtual teams, one needs to understand virtu-

alness. Therefore I will first introduce the concept of virtualness, and second I will
conceptualize the most common manifestation of virtual teams in today’s organiza-
tions: hybrid virtual teams. This type of virtual team comprises a mixture of dispersed
and collocated team members and I will specify how teams need to be differentiated
according to the degree of geographic dispersion and the extent of dependency on
communication technology, as both dimensions may have significant effects on the
team and its members.
Introducing the concept of virtualness. Classifying virtual teams as a single
phenomenon in the sense of clustering a team as either purely virtual or not virtual at
all (Bell and Kozlowski 2002), leads to ample research about (virtual) teams focusing
on the comparison of either fully virtual or fully face-to-face teams (Schweitzer
and Duxbury 2010: 269). When the aspect of virtuality was treated as distinctly
categorical by deploying a dichotomous differentiation between virtual and face-to-
face teams (Hoch and Kozlowski 2014: 391), the results regarding the team outcomes
were mixed (Martins et al. 2004: 817). However in fact, most teams in today’s
organizations will likely fall in between those two extremes of either being fully
virtual or fully face-to-face (Griffith et al. 2003: 268; Schweitzer and Duxbury 2010:
268). As a consequence, researchers are turning away from defining virtual teams as
a kind of team that is different from ‘conventional’ face-to-face teams. Instead, they
are focusing on ‘virtualness’ as a potential characteristic of all teams (e.g. Griffith
and Neale 2001; Griffith et al. 2003). Thus, all teams may be assigned on a continuum
of virtualness. Hence, scholars claim that a simple differentiation of virtual and face-
to-face teams “glosses over a variety of nuanced dimensions that underlie a range of
differences in the degree of virtuality” (Hoch and Kozlowski 2014: 391).
At first, conceptualizations of virtualness or team virtuality focused solely on
geographic distribution. Subsequent conceptualizations and definitions added com-
munication technology to the concept of virtualness (e.g. Townsend et al. 1998: 17;
Bell and Kozlowski 2002: 22). Empirical research refers to both attributes: geo-
graphic dispersion (e.g. O’Leary and Cummings 2007; O’Leary and Mortensen
2010) and the extent of dependency on communication technology (e.g. Mesmer-
Magnus et al. 2011; Griffith et al. 2003) as indications of ‘team virtuality’. Hoch and
Kozlowski (2014: 391) conclude, that this twofold conceptualization of virtuality is
the established approach nowadays.
Introducing hybrid virtual teams. Griffith and her colleagues (2003) as well as
Fiol and O’Connor (2005) provide determinations for teams on a dimension of vir-
tualness from less to more virtual. They conceptualize three distinct team categories
on a one-dimensional scale: traditional, hybrid and pure virtual teams. To them, tra-
ditional teams are solely collocated, face-to-face teams, wherein all team members
do all of their work face-to-face and make no use of communication technology at
all. Yet, scholars generally admit, that with today’s ubiquity of computer-mediated
interactions, such pure face-to-face teams, that do not use any communication tech-
nology to collaborate, may be rare in organizations of the twenty-first century (Griffith
and Neale 2001: 385–386). The second dimension of virtualness constitutes hybrid
teams,4 which are composed of members, who interact according to the require-
ments of the particular situation and through media technology. Thereby, the team
members determine with their own adaptation and with the way they structure the
different team processes, how frequently they interact face-to-face with each other
(DeSanctis and Poole 1994; Griffith and Neale 2001: 386). Many of today’s orga-
nizational teams are likely to fall into this second category using a combination of
computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Last but not least, pure virtual
teams comprise individuals with collaborate (largely) electronically mediated and
basically never meet face-to-face (Griffith et al. 2003: 267–268; Fiol and O’Connor
2005: 20).
Inspired by the above concept, Polzer and his colleagues (2006) conceptualize the
‘configurational dispersion’ in virtual teams. This refers to the specific distribution
of team members over multiple locations (O’Leary and Cummings 2007). According
to this, configurational dispersion is grounded at one extreme by traditional, fully
collocated teams. In those teams, all team members are based and work at the same
location. Fully virtual teams are the opposing extreme of a team configuration. In
those teams, each team member is distributed at a different location. In between these
two extremes lies a variety of ‘partly dispersed’ or hybrid team configurations and
they may differ in the arrangement of individuals or subgroups at a distinct location
(Griffith and Neale 2001; Polzer et al. 2006; Siebdrat et al. 2014: 769).
On the basis of the works of Griffith and her colleagues (2003), Fiol and O’Connor
(2005) and Polzer and his colleagues (2006), I develop a more nuanced and compre-
hensive conceptualization of teams by combining the two dimensions of the teams’
degree of dispersion and the extent of technology reliance (see Fig. 2.1). Applying
this conceptualization to teams on a continuum provides a differentiation between
traditional teams, hybrid virtual teams and purely virtual teams.
In a traditional team all team members operate at the same location and due to
that have the option to choose whether to communicate face-to-face or electronically
with their collocated team members. In differentiation to that, hybrid virtual teams
comprise some team members who work collocated with each other, while at the same
time other members of the hybrid team are dispersed. Due to this spatial distance,
almost no chance for face-to-face contact with those dispersed team members exists
and the collaboration is almost entirely relying on communication technology. In
consequence, in such hybrid virtual teams, the geographic dispersion with some team
4 Other scholars have coined such teams as ‘partially distributed team’, which they equally defined as
a team consisting of at least two geographically distinct locations, with multiple members collocated
at each location and members must interact with both collocated and distant members (e.g. Carmel
and Abbott 2007; Ocker et al. 2009). Alternatively, Webster and Wong (2008: 42) name such
teams ‘semi-virtual’ team, while also referring to a team comprising local subgroup and remote
team members. Some scholars stress that further research about such semi-virtual teams is needed
(Pauleen 2003), because hybrid virtual teams likely encounter different team dynamics compared
to fully virtual teams (Webster and Staples 2006; Webster and Wong 2008: 42).
Traditional Hybrid virtual Purely

face-to-face teams teams virtual
teams
Relying on
Not relying on Completely
technology with
technology relying on
some team members technology
Local subgroups
Collocated and remote team Completely
members distributed
Fig. 2.1 Conceptualization of hybrid virtual teams. Source Own illustration
members results in a reduction of spontaneous communication, while at the same

time the necessary face-to-face interaction with the collocated team members is still
likely. This understanding of hybrid virtual teams differs especially in the aspect of
meeting ‘occasionally’ as a key feature of hybrid teams mentioned previously. Most
likely, hybrid virtual teams are the most common manifestation of virtual teams.
To complete the trinomial scale, the purely virtual team comprises team members,
who are all dispersed across different locations; hence none of the members are
collocated with each other. In consequence, the collaboration is entirely relying on
communication technology, as neither physical nor actual face-to-face contact is
possible on a day-to-day basis. Exceptions may be face-to-face contacts during the
occasional business trips or team building events.
According to Fig. 2.1, hybrid virtual teams comprise a mixture of collocated and
dispersed team members: the team members, who are collocated with each other,
have the choice to whether interact face-to-face (even spontaneously and on a daily
basis) or to employ communication technology. At the same time, other members
of the team are dispersed, wherefore the collaboration with them is entirely relying
upon communication technology. Those team members will hardly ever or even
never meet in person. With this conceptualization, it is possible that a hybrid virtual
team also includes one or more team members, which are ‘fully dispersed’, that is,
‘isolated’ at a different site without having any collocated team members.
2.1.4 Shared Services Organizations as a Challenging

Context for Hybrid Virtual Teams
One organizational context where the number of hybrid virtual teams has increased
significantly in recent years is the Shared Services Organization. The hybrid virtual
teams, which constitute the research context for the present study, are emerging within
this organizational context, because the management is seeking an optimal distribu-

tion of work on a global scale. Therefore, I will first introduce the organizational
form of Shared Services; second, I will display the advantages and disadvantages of
this work design; third, I will focus on the teams in Shared Services—something that
has not been done sufficiently in the respective literature—and thereby describe why
hybrid virtual teams emerge within this context. Lastly, fourth, I will zoom into what
is symptomatic for most Shared Service teams: a constantly changing workforce due
to restructuring and fluctuation.
Relevance and definition of Shared Services. In today’s business life organiza-
tions encounter a global competitive pressure to boost their operating efficiency and
face constantly changing demand conditions (Nixon et al. 2004). Thus, successful
organizations are forced to walk the tightrope between accomplishing a competitive
advantage through customer focus and a flexible adaptation to changing needs on one
hand, while making use of economies of scale on the other hand (e.g. Lentz 1996;
IBM White Paper 2011). One answer to this challenging business environment can
be the implementation of an organizational form called Shared Services.5 Shared
Services are an organizational form for the service delivery of back-office functions
such as IT, Human Resources or Finance. It has gained quite some relevance in the
past couple of years in the private as well as in the public sector. As a consequence,
Shared Services is a very prevalent model within large corporations worldwide, with
over 85% of Fortune 100 companies boasting Shared Services structures in varying
configurations (Soalheira and Timbrell 2014: 68).
The two Swiss scholars Schulz and Brenner (2010: 211) conducted a literature
review to identify the most common characteristics of Shared Services:
• aim to consolidate and concentrate the supporting processes within the company
to diminish redundancies;
• provision of support processes as its primary competency;
• cost reduction is a key driver for implementation;
• service-oriented focus on internal clients;
• alignment with the external environment, especially with competitors;
• independent organizational unit within the company;
• operation run like a business (Schulz and Brenner 2010: 215–216).
5 Schulz and Brenner (2010) used the search terms “shared service center(re)”, “shared service
organiz(s)ation” and “shared services” for their literature review, therewith implicating that those
terms can be used interchangeably. In line with that, a recent KPMG Report (2015: 8) states, that
“Shared Service Center” (SSC) used to be the most frequently used term, because the services, which
are shared within the corporation, have been provided by a center in the beginning. Nowadays, the
organizational structure of the support function is more complex and can comprise multiple centers
across the world, wherefore the term “Shared Service Organisation” (SSO) would best describe it.
Consistently, Herbert and Seal (2012: 83) deployed the SSO label to intentionally emphasize the
special organisational characteristics of the new model, which distinguishes it from the ‘traditional’
centralised- or head-office model of service provision. I will therefore use “Shared Services” and
“Shared Services Organization” in the study presented in this book. The capitalized spelling of
the former refers to the organizational model, in order to distinguish it from shared services in
lowercase, the term describing the actual service tasks provided.
In a similar vein, Bondarouk (2014) identified the following characteristics

of Shared Services:
• provision of a collection of shareable services to specific end-users;
• conditions of services are determined by and agreed with end-users;
• exchange based upon intra-organizational business arrangement;
• semi-autonomous or autonomous organizational units within the company (Bon-
darouk 2014: x).
Concluding, both lists of Shared Service characteristics share the collection of share-
able services, which are provided in a customer-centric manner by a dedicated unit
within the organization, while operating like a business.
Advantages of Shared Services Organizations. The practitioner and consultant
literature emphasizes the following advantages of Shared Services Organizations:
(1) reduction of cost,
(2) increase of quality and
(3) ability to change.
Regarding (1), Shared Services initiatives may deliver cost savings in two ways:
first, through economies of scale and second, through arbitrage. First, the overarch-
ing idea of Shared Services is that services provided by one department to another
department can also be provided to additional departments. This provision to multiple
departments allows benefiting from substantial economies of scale and simultane-
ously to eliminate duplication of service provision within one organization (Redman
et al. 2007: 1489). Second, because the physical location or, in other words, the
place where the service is ‘produced’ may become less important, the Shared Ser-
vices model offers arbitrage opportunities in terms of the incurring cost for labor and
infrastructure. In fact, in order to take advantage of these opportunities, the relatively
expensive workers, which are located in developed countries, are replaced by lower
waged workers, which are usually located in less developed countries. As a side
effect, the infrastructure costs in these countries are usually lower as well (Rothwell
et al. 2011: 243). However, there are many examples of Shared Services that have
not delivered their promise of reducing costs (e.g. Farndale et al. 2009; Knol et al.
2014: 91; Elston and MacCarthaigh 2016: 351).
Regarding (2), Shared Services Organizations acknowledge that customer sat-
isfaction, rather than ‘simple’ cost reductions, should be their primary goal. Thus,
managers of Shared Services have to accomplish two things at the same time to
become effective nowadays: to cut costs while at the same time to improve the ser-
vice quality (Forst 2001: 14). Those quality improvements may be realized through
an improved consistency and accuracy of the provided service, through making use
of best approach across the entire organization and through increasing the customer-
focus and the accessibility for the employees (Reilly 2000: 7). This may lead to
less duplications and greater use of technology, which in turn can result in quality
improvements (Redman et al. 2007: 1489).
Regarding (3), the third proclaimed advantage of Shared Services relates to the
fact that such systems usually emerge from extensive organizational restructuring
initiatives. For example, introducing Shared Services for Human Resources is often
linked with (a) the devolution of responsibility to the line, (b) to a strategic repo-
sitioning of Human Resources in the organization and (c) changes to provide more
structural flexibility. In line with (a) and (b), Keep (2001) argues that, for example
in the public sector, Shared Services may be utilized strategically to leverage scarce
expertise and make better use of the limited number of staff within the support func-
tions. Through the introduction of self-service solutions and the disincorporation
of the administrative, more transactional aspects of work, transformational capacity
could be freed up, so that professionals of support functions could spend more time
on working strategically (Starritt 2002: 53). Point (c) originates from the idea that
Shared Services allow a greater flexibility to respond to business change such as
mergers and acquisition or disinvesting of business units (Cooke 2006: 213).
Disadvantages of Shared Services Organizations. However, existing evidence
from academia suggests that in fact (at least some of) the assumed benefits of Shared
Services do not materialize (Cooke 2006: 214, 221; Janssen and Joha 2006: 109).
Thus, Shared Services is “not a failsafe solution” (Elston and MacCarthaigh 2016:
349) and multiple disadvantages have been identified as key organizational risks for
Shared Services to succeed. For instance, inflexibility to customer needs, unrespon-
siveness and remoteness from customers located in the business unit as well as lack
of customer control of overhead costs have been mentioned as disadvantages of this
organizational structure (Janssen and Joha 2006; Dollery et al. 2007). Furthermore,
reviews of Shared Services have identified project delays, budget blowouts, poor
governance, missing transparency and widespread lack of trust by the consumer in
the service provider (Janssen and Joha 2006; Redman et al. 2007; Dollery and Aki-
mov 2008; Grossman 2010; Ramphal 2011; Kennewell and Baker 2016). Looking at
these potential downsides, it may not be surprising that a recent PwC Study (2011)
among managers representing 127 different corporations revealed that 85% of them
detect huge improvement potential for their Shared Services Organizations.
Interesting though, the employees and their perspectives take up only very lit-
tle space the Shared Services literature (Redman et al. 2007: 1490) and most of
the aforementioned advantages of Shared Services are organizational benefits (e.g.
Reilly 2000, 2014), rather than benefits for the employees working in Shared Ser-
vices. Despite this scholarly omission, some disbenefits for the employees of Shared
Services have been articulated: employees report about their jobs being not particu-
larly interesting anymore as a result of an increasing and rather narrow specialization,
further they express their feeling of being de-skilled, being disappointed that they
are not able to see the work from start to end, regret the absence of face-to-face con-
tact with their customers and they are worried about their career possibilities (Reilly
2000; Sparrow et al. 2004).
Hence, some scholars justifiably argue that we need to take a closer look at the
individual perspectives of the employees and the related challenges arising from the
Shared Services context (Knol et al. 2014: 101). Missing this perspective is repre-
hensible, because the implementation of Shared Services is in fact a sociomaterial
activity (Orlikowski 2007; Iveroth 2011; Knol et al. 2014: 100–101), as it requires
to focus on the material (focus on materiality like structures and technology) as well
as the social (focus on humans) aspects.
Hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations. This focus on the
material aspects within the Shared Service community might also be a reason, why
the aspects related to teamwork in the context of this organizational structure has not
been addressed properly. Because interestingly, Shared Services is actually a good
example for an organizational context, where the number of hybrid virtual teams has
increased significantly in recent years. Some scholars describe respective manifesta-
tions without labeling them hybrid virtual teams and usually it is not reflected about
what that could mean for teamwork or other social aspects of the humans within
Shared Services (e.g. Friedman 2005; Howcroft and Richardson 2012). Instead, the
focus is rather on the material aspects and how the management of the Shared Services
Organizations may steer a middle course between customer focus and economies of
scale and the associated questions about work design at the operational level of the
Shared Services Organization. Specifically, the work design in the Shared Service
context has usually two layers: first, support activities that were previously dispersed
across the different business units are brought together in one organization, the Shared
Services Organization (Howcroft and Richardson 2012: 113; Knol et al. 2014: 93).
This basically implies a re-design of the work between the service recipient (the busi-
ness units) and the service provider (the Shared Services). Second, within the Shared
Services Organization itself, the managers need to pay close attention to the actual
distribution of work within their organization. Distinctions between transformational
activities, traditional processes and transactional activities (e.g. Quinn et al. 2000)
or alternatively between strategic, operational and support tasks (e.g. Reilly 2000)
have been discussed for the support function. Thereby, in the course of the Shared
Services’ implementation, the decision makers have to choose which work activities
shall be kept collocated to the business units and which activities can be transferred
to foreign locations. Thereby, the objective is to ensure that the integration of the
outputs of the distributed work runs smoothly to be able to provide a coherent service.
As a result of these reflections, there is a trend within Shared Services Organizations
towards a (at least) dual structure:
(1) service centers (central hubs) concentrating scalable work (mostly in low-wage
countries); and
(2) local (or regional) business partners providing tailored services (mostly in high-
wage countries).
Regarding (1), in order to successfully leverage economies of scale, it is seen as
essential to consolidate the previously dispersed back office work. In the course of
that consolidation, service centers may become large-scale sites that are based in
a decentered location compared to the organization’s core. Thereby, multinational
corporations may search on a global scale for the best combination of available
skills, costs and regulatory framework in the different countries and based upon this
screening pick a specific location (Harvey 1982; Howcroft and Richardson 2012).
In the pursuit for cost reductions, the arbitrage opportunities in terms of lower costs
for labor and infrastructure frequently affect the decision process. Consequently,
the decision for a specific location often goes hand in hand with the decision to
replace the relatively expensive employees, which are usually located in developed
countries, with lower-waged employees, which are usually located in developing
countries (Rothwell et al. 2011: 243). Yet, despite the greater geographical flexibility,
the distance to the rest of the organization still seems to matter. An analysis of
150 articles about nearshoring revealed, that 60% of the companies state as their
main reason for nearshoring rather than offshoring6 the balance between proximity
advantage and lower costs (Carmel and Abbott 2007). Therefore, the centers may be
located in developing countries, but often also in less developed regions in the home
or neighbor countries. For example, in the UK this clustering of activity leads to a
shift from the capital region London to cheaper regions. For instance, Manchester is
now characterized by one of the most significant concentrations of Shared Services
Centers in Europe (Howcroft and Richardson 2012: 114–115). Hence, offering the
same advantages of close proximity and less time zone differences, Eastern European
countries will continue to become important locations of Service Center for Western
European firms (Lacity et al. 2008: 23; Howcroft and Richardson 2012: 121).
Regarding (2), it has been argued that not all Shared Service employees can be
physically centralized in centers, because visibility within the business is of utmost
importance. Hence, some of the employees need to be collocated with the customers
in the business units (e.g. Ulrich 1997; Ulrich and Brockbank 2005; Farndale et al.
2009: 546) to function as so-called ‘business partner’. The term ‘business partner’
shall convey its proactive role in planning, decision-making and checking in oper-
ational and strategic teams (Gospel and Sako 2010; Herbert and Seal 2012: 94–95)
in alignment with the different business units. Such local presence of business part-
ners introduces elements of decentralized service and therewith may balance out the
centralized structures of Shared Services’ organizations. With such a twofold set-up,
the provision of centralized resources is brought in line with locally or regionally
tailored advices, policies or procedures to address specific business needs (Sparrow
et al. 2004: 67).
The consequence of this dual structure of service center and local business partner
is the emergence of hybrid virtual teams, which comprise members of the service
center and members belonging to the local business partners. That is, because they
constitute a group of individuals, working interdependently on shared common goal,
while they are embedded in an organizational context. In addition to those four
attributes of teams (see Sect. 2.1.1) and due to the aforementioned decisions related
to the location, the team-structures are also characterized by geographic dispersion
and reliance on communication technology (see Sect. 2.1.3), which makes them
hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations.
Constantly changing team composition due to restructuring and fluctua-
tion. Another aspect, which is characteristic for Shared Services and which has
6 The term ‘offshoring’ signifies the relocation of organizational activities to either a fully owned
subsidiary or to an independent service provider (outsourcing) in another country. Nearshoring
describes the relocation of organizational activities to a neighboring country, for example when
US-American organizations relocate their work to Canada or Mexico (Oshri et al. 2015: 4–5).
mostly been addressed from a material perspective, while the social aspect has been
neglected, is the constantly changing composition of teams. The team’s composition
is changing either because of restructurings or because of fluctuation and it will likely
have an effect on the employees. Firstly, the set up of Shared Services frequently
leads to downsizing of the existing workforce, as this is mostly the biggest portion
of the incurring costs of the organization (Froud et al. 2006). A further manifesta-
tion of restructuring in this context is the relocating of the workplace, potentially
transferring work from high-wage to low-wage regions or countries, while reorga-
nizing of the work for the employees in the retained organization often leads to
layoffs in high-wage countries (Cooke 2006: 214). Next to these restructuring, a
second aspect, which is symptomatic of Shared Services Organizations and effects
the team composition, is the high fluctuation of employees with turnover rates of
20–30% (Howcroft and Richardson 2012; Schwarz 2014). Some of the aforemen-
tioned downsides of Shared Services might explain why many members of Shared
Services teams are leaving. Interestingly though, Howcroft and Richardson (2012)
show in their research project on Shared Services in North-West England, compris-
ing multiple interviews with Shared Services executives, that the retention of staff
was an issue as managers attend to attrition rates and even welcomed a certain degree
of turnover. In the eight different Shared Services Organizations in scope of their
research project, a 15% annual turnover was considered a more or less ‘ideal’ pace of
change, with figures ranging between 5 and 30%. The rational thinking behind this
is that such a turnover allows replacing highly skilled and thus likely more expensive
employees with less skilled, lower-cost employees. Yet, achieving the right skill mix
is not an easy task. Furthermore, it is necessary to encourage the individual employ-
ees to consider the Shared Services Organization as a place for their long-term career
(Howcroft and Richardson 2012: 119). Especially with the goals shifting from ‘pure’
cost savings towards qualitative improvements and knowledge-centric activities in
the centralized location (Becker et al. 2009; Howcroft and Richardson 2012).
In consequence, the set up of a Shared Services Organization does not only
promise diverse advantages, but at the same time there are also numerous reasons
why this may be a particularly challenging context for member of teams operating in
this organizational context to successfully cooperate with each other. Yet, the Shared
Services’ literature only superficially discusses the effects of this organizational setup
on those individuals, who have to work within it (Redman et al. 2007: 1499). Hence,
the Shared Service context is perfectly suited for the research of hybrid virtual teams,
because it is likely very insightful to investigate the hybrid virtual teams operating
therein, as they are prone to suffer from cooperation problems. In sum, the research
findings of the study presented in this book will be not only theoretically but also
practically highly relevant for those interested in hybrid virtual teams and/or Shared
Services teams.
In the subsequent sections of this chapter I will present the sensitizing concepts of
three contextual challenges, which likely are of utmost importance to better under-
stand the challenging context of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organi-
zations and I will outline in what way those challenges may lead to cooperation
problems between the members of such teams.
2.2 Challenges of Hybrid Virtual Teams in Shared Service … 23
2.2 Challenges of Hybrid Virtual Teams in Shared Service

Organisations Leading to Cooperation Problems
Despite their prevalence, virtual teams are fraught with problems of cooperation, as
they encounter various challenges, which may hamper their teamwork to flourish.
To better understand where the context-specific challenges may originate from, I
will (1) define the cooperation problem of teams in general. On this basis, I will
then (2) theoretically identify three contextual challenges—distance, technology and
temporality—for hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations as sensitizing
concepts to further theorize, why and how they may compound the cooperation
problem for hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations afterwards.
2.2.1 Defining the Cooperation Problem
Cooperation in teams does not just happen. Teams can neither be easily installed
nor does the composition of skilled individuals in a team ensure its success (e.g.
Hackman 1987; Salas et al. 2005: 555–556). Teams have great potential, yet at the
same time, if teams fail and not cooperate this can have far-reaching effects for the
organizations, ranging from decreased productivity, failing to meet deadlines, losing
revenue or creating faulty products (e.g. Alderfer 1977; Janis 1972). In practice,
many teams fail to exploit their full potential and many teams encounter significant
cooperation problems.
In organizational research, cooperation is defined “as the willful contribution of
personal effort to the completion of interdependent jobs” (Wagner III 1995: 152).
Complementary, the term cooperation problem refers to process losses due to with-
holding of personal effort of team members. Withholding effort is defined as “the
likelihood that an individual will give less than full effort to a job-related task”
(Lin and Huang 2010: 188). This is considered as a topic of utmost importance in
organizational research, because individuals withholding their effort may be disad-
vantageous for the organization’s overall performance (Kidwell and Bennett 1993:
451). In a team context such non-cooperative behavior is often studied under the
concepts of social loafing and free riding (e.g. Wagner III 1995: 152; Chidambaram
and Tung 2005: 149; Lin and Huang 2010: 188). The term social loafing is rooted
in socio-psychology and describes individuals’ reduction of effort in the setting of
teamwork due to the presence of others (e.g. Latané et al. 1979). In distinction to
that, the term free riding is rooted in economic literature and relates to the analysis
of social dilemma situations, where opportunistic individuals collect the benefits of
others providing public goods (e.g. Stroebe and Frey 1982). Yet, despite those dif-
ferent theoretical origins, in organizational research ‘social loafing’ and ‘free riding’
are frequently used interchangeably. Therein, both describe a behavior pattern of a
team member, who provides “less than maximum possible participation or effort due
to motivation and circumstance” (Kidwell and Bennett 1993: 430).
Motivational reasons for withholding effort have been linked with individuals
who perceive that their contributions do not make any difference (e.g. due to group
size). Research addressing motivational reasons regarding cooperation problems in
teams (or groups respectively) often refer to social impact theory (Latané 1981). This
theory describes a perceived ‘dilution effect’ (Chidambaram and Tung 2005: 151),
indicating that individuals’ motivation to contribute to the team is smaller in larger
teams. The team members may be less motivated to perform, because they have the
feeling that their contributions may be too marginal, if the group size is large (Karau
and Williams 1993; Kidwell and Bennett 1993). In larger groups individuals can hide
in the crowd and their effort becomes less identifiable; hence, the risk of social loafing
as a cooperation problem increases with a large group size and low identifiability of
behaviors (e.g. George 1992). Empirical evidence supports this (e.g. Williams et al.
1981; Wagner III 1995).
In contrast to the motivational reasons, circumstantial reasons for withholding
of effort have been linked to environmental conditions. For instance, the scholars
Kidwell and Bennett (1993) created a theoretical model about employee’s propen-
sity to withhold effort and explicitly integrated contextual variables such as reward
system or group characteristics. In line with expectations, the research related to cir-
cumstantial reasons—or contextual challenges respectively—leading to cooperation
problem is very context-specific. Therewith, the respective difficulties, which may
influence the cooperative efforts of individuals within teams, can be traced back to
the context in which the team’s cooperation is taking place. Certainly, a variety of
such contextual reasons could be investigated, but instead, in the next section I will
sensitize for potential contextual challenges, which may be particularly relevant for
cooperation in hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations.
2.2.2 Challenges for Cooperation in Hybrid Virtual Teams

in Shared Service Organisations
The occurrence of cooperation problems is even more likely in hybrid virtual teams
in Shared Services Organizations than in ‘traditional’ teams, as the former may
encounter specific contextual challenges for cooperation due to distance, technol-
ogy and temporality. Hence, I will first introduce the sensitizing concepts regarding
the contextual challenges—distance, technology and temporality—for cooperation
among members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations. Based
upon this overview, I will then present in more detail each of the three contextual
challenges of distance, technology and temporality in the subsequent sections. Thus,
second, I will specify distance as an aspect of the aforementioned geographic dis-
persion and present theories about faultlines, subgroups and their potential negative
dynamics. Third, in respect to the aforementioned (reliance on) technology, I will
present theories regarding media fit and the related risks of communication lapses.
Lastly, fourth, regarding the constantly changing team composition due to restructur-
ing and fluctuation, which are characteristic for teams in the Shared Service context, I
will theorize how such a temporality may lead to a low shadow of the future and jeop-
ardize the norm of reciprocity. These three contextual challenges—distance, technol-
ogy and temporality—may all be environmental reasons for cooperation problems
of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations.
2.2.2.1 Overview: Sensitizing Concepts of Contextual Challenges
The increased risk of cooperation problems between members of hybrid virtual

teams in Shared Services Organizations may originate from a variety of environ-
mental reasons. As it is neither possible nor plausible to investigate all of them, I
will theoretically sensitize for potential contextual challenges, which may be partic-
ularly relevant for the cooperative efforts of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services
Organizations. The selected sensitizing concepts of contextual challenges relate to
distance, technology and temporality and are based upon existing literature about
hybrid virtual teams and Shared Service teams, combined with my own work expe-
rience and my initial insights from field research. Those three contextual challenges
might be most impactful in compounding the problems of cooperation for the hybrid
virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations. Thereby, the circumstantial reasons
of being geographically distant from each other and cooperating through commu-
nication technology as characteristic for hybrid virtual teams may already put the
cooperation within the team at risk. This risk may be amplified by a temporality
of team composition as characteristic for the Shared Service context. Therefore, I
will (1) showcase the benefits of deploying sensitizing concepts to theorize the con-
textual challenges and then (2) clarify the cooperation problem in hybrid virtual
teams. Afterwards, I will (3) give an overview of the three contextual challenges of
hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations. This overview is also meant
to structure the subsequent three sections of this chapter.
Sensitizing concepts to structure the contextual challenges. Because insights
are never theoretical undirected, social phenomenon can never be investigated with-
out theoretical foreknowledge. Thus, it requires insight-leading concepts in order
to actually recognize social phenomenon (Kruse 2014: 109). A so-called theoret-
ical sensibility relates to the availability of useful heuristic concepts, which allow
the identification of theoretically relevant phenomenon in the data material (Kelle
1996: 32; Kruse 2014: 110), wherefore this theoretical sensibility can be linked to
the sensitizing concepts introduced by Blumer (1954). Sensitizing concepts in the
sense of insight-leading concepts only function to generate tentative questions and
perspectives for the research at hand and therefore these sensitizing concepts pro-
vide a broad orientation rather than that they determine anything (Strübing 2004: 30;
Kruse 2014: 112). Based upon my literature search combined with my previous work
experience in the context of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations
(see Sect. 4.2.1), I first decided to focus on the cooperation problem in hybrid virtual
teams in Shared Services Organizations as this is not comprehensively captured in
theory yet, but likely of utmost interest for fellow scholars as well as representatives
from the corporate world. Based upon this consideration, I further scanned the litera-
ture regarding specific contextual challenges, which may be particularly relevant for
hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations. Based upon this theoretical
sensitization, I identified three contextual challenges, which I will introduce here-
after in the tradition of sensitizing concepts for the empirical research at hand: (1)
distance, (2) technology and (3) temporality.
Cooperation problem in hybrid virtual teams. Not only teams in general, but
virtual teams in particular are fraught with problems of cooperation and coordination
(Montoya-Weiss et al. 2001), as fundamental difficulties to organize their cooper-
ative endeavors seem to exist (Lipnack and Stamps 2000; Piccoli and Ives 2003).
Although technology allows bringing dispersed team members together, those vir-
tual teams often find it more difficult to reach a common accord of their team’s task
(e.g. Armstrong and Cole 2002). The virtuality may create additional challenges,
which members of virtual teams need to overcome when working together to create
an effective team (Berry 2011: 192). Hence virtual team members need to devote
extra attention to coordination and communication in order to overcome the physical
boundaries that separate them (Cramton 2001; Cummings and Haas 2012). These
problems are compounded if virtual teams are deployed for complex, knowledge-
based work (e.g. Lin and Huang 2010). More precisely, cooperation problems due
to withholding of effort of virtual team members seem to be a persistent feature of
virtual teamwork (e.g. Chidambaram and Tung 2005; Suleiman and Watson 2008:
291).
Some studies give empirical evidence for the virtual team context aggravating the
problem of cooperation compared to traditional face-to-face teams, especially the
risk of withholding effort. For example, in a laboratory experiment Chidambaram
and Tung (2005) show differences between teams working face-to-face and teams in
dispersed situations cooperating through communication technology. For instance,
the two scholars compare the number of ideas generated per person in a brainstorm-
ing task and therewith show that the mean number of ideas generated by virtual team
members is considerably lower than the number of ideas generated by face-to-face
team members (cp. Alnuaimi et al. 2010). Building on these results, Alnuaimi and
colleagues (2010) confirm in another experimental study, that withholding of effort
as a problem that hinders team cooperation and performance, is more prominent in
virtual teams than in face-to-face settings (Alnuaimi et al. 2010). Additionally, in
her experimental study of geographically distributed student teams, Cramton (2001)
finds that several team tasks remained uncompleted. She explains, that different
types of problems exist, which may hamper the cooperation in virtual teams: mem-
bers of virtual teams often have implicit expectations about who is responsible for
the completion of a specific task, yet unfortunately the information is often unevenly
distributed within the team, team members may fail to communicate the necessary
contextual information or they encounter difficulties in communicating and under-
standing the salience of information. In addition, members of virtual teams expe-
rience such mutual knowledge problems as a result of different speed of access to
information and virtual team members need to realize that there are multiple ways
to interpret the meaning of silence (Cramton 2001; Bjørn et al. 2014: 3). Moreover,
in a qualitative study about virtual teams, Kirkman and his colleagues (2002) identi-
fied overcoming group-process losses and the risk that team members experiencing
isolation and detachment as important problems of virtual teams (Kirkman et al.
2002).
Contextual challenges of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organiza-
tions. The members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations are
especially prone to suffer from cooperation problems for circumstantial reasons.
Such circumstantial reasons refer to environmental difficulties, i.e. contextual chal-
lenges, which may make cooperative efforts more difficult. To better comprehend the
complexity of the challenging context, I identified three sensitizing concepts of con-
textual challenges for hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations, which
may be particularly relevant: (1) distance, (2) technology and (3) temporality. The
hybrid virtual team setting may determine the first two contextual challenges and
the Shared Services Organization context may determine the contextual challenge of
temporality. Table 2.1 provides an overview about those three sensitizing concepts
of contextual challenges.
To better understand the challenging context of hybrid virtual teams in Shared
Services Organizations, I will depict as sensitizing concepts how the three contex-
tual challenges of distance (see Sect. 2.2.2.2), technology (see Sect. 2.2.2.3) and
temporality (see Sect. 2.2.2.4) may bear the risk of leading to cooperation problems
in such teams.
Table 2.1 Overview of contextual challenges of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services
Organizations
Context Sensitizing concept Theories
Hybrid virtual teams (1) Contextual challenge of – Faultlines (e.g. Lau and
Distance Murnighan 1998) and
location-based subgroups
(e.g. Polzer et al. 2006)
– Social identity and
self-categorization (Tajfel
1981; Tajfel and Turner
1986)
(2) Contextual challenge of – Media Richness Theory
Technology (Daft and Lengel 1986)
– Media Synchronicity
Theory (Dennis et al. 2008)
Shared Services (3) Contextual challenge of – Shadow of the future
Organizations Temporality (Saunders and Ahuja 2006)
– Norm of reciprocity
(Colquitt et al. 2007;
Hoppner and Griffith 2011)
Source Own illustration
2.2.2.2 Contextual Challenge of Distance
One of the contextual challenges of hybrid virtual teams potentially provoking a

cooperation problem is the geographic distance between members of the team. The
fact that the team members are based in different work locations can create fault-
lines. Faultlines divide the hybrid virtual team into different subgroups and these
subgroups can hamper the cooperation within teams, because they create not only a
geographic, but can also create an emotional distance. Therefore, I will first concep-
tualize distance, second, I will introduce the Faultline Theory, especially the salience
of attributes (i.e. different work locations), third, I will explain the process of social
categorization, and fourth, I will focus on the risk of (negative) team dynamics (i.e.
“us-versus-them”).
Conceptualizing distance. The distance between members of a team can be con-
ceptualized as a multidimensional construct (e.g. Monge et al. 1985; Valacich et al.
1994), which may be influenced by both physical (actual) and psychological (per-
ceived) distance between the cooperating team members (Chidambaram and Tung
2005: 151). For instance, the circumstances of interaction in hybrid virtual teams may
include a combination of physical aspects, such as the geographical distance between
team members, as well as psychological aspects, such as the difficulty in recogniz-
ing team members’ identities. Both distances can constrain the interaction among
members of a team (Chidambaram and Tung 2005: 151–152), causing breakdowns
in mutual adjustment processes (Herbsleb and Mockus 2003). The degree of dis-
tance may determine, for example, the time required for relational bonds to develop
(Chidambaram 1996), the nature of communication exchange (Walther 1995), the
speed to develop trust (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999) or the risk of social loafing
(Chidambaram and Tung 2005). Ultimately, the geographical dispersion of team
members may lead to process losses (e.g. Suleiman and Watson 2008), as due to the
limited visibility (Chidambaram and Tung 2005) of the fellow team members, the
uncertainty increases (Fiol and O’Conner 2005). Because of this, the work across
distance is commonly associated with anonymity and self-centering (e.g. Sproull and
Kiesler 1986; Valacich et al. 1994), leading to faultlines that divide the hybrid virtual
team into subgroups.
Salience of faultlines. Lau and Murnighan (1998) introduce the Faultline Theory,
which they originally developed for explaining effects of demographic diversity on
team dynamics. According to this theory, group faultlines are
hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group into subgroups based on one or more
attributes. (Lau and Murnighan 1998: 328)
Some researchers distinguish between faultlines based upon social attributes (e.g.
sex, race, age) and informational attributes (e.g. experience and functional back-
ground, education, tenure; Lau and Murnighan 1998; Bezrukova et al. 2009, 2012;
Bezrukova and Uparna 2009), whereas others investigate faultlines based upon non-
demographic attributes such as personality types (e.g. narcissism, Type A personal-
ities; Molleman 2005; Gratton et al. 2007) or even the level of ‘familiness’ in the
context of family-owned companies (Minichilli et al. 2010; cp. Thatcher and Patel
2012). Recent research has also introduced the (work) location as an attribute, which
may be particularly important for geographically dispersed teams (e.g. Cramton and
Hinds 2004; Polzer et al. 2006; Gokakkar 2007; O’Leary and Mortensen 2010).
Most important is the salience of an attribute in order to be perceived (Meyer et al.
2011; Shemla et al. 2014) and hence, function as a faultline splitting the team into
subgroups. Prior research shows that individuals typically perceive those attributes
as salient that are the most distinctive attributes in a specific situation (Cota and
Dion 1986; Hogg and Turner 1987) and that best distinguish them from others at
that time (Cohen and Swim 1995). Hence, individuals place themselves and others
into subgroups using criteria that are salient in their particular context (Brewer 1979;
Hogg 2001). Thereby, the salience depends on their normative fit (i.e. the extent to
which the attributes are perceived as meaningful), their cognitive accessibility (i.e.
due to attention, consciousness, knowledge and literacy), and their comparative fit
(i.e. the extent to which people believe that a collection of attributes represents an
entity, with smaller differences in attributes within this entity than between this entity
and other attributes) (Turner et al. 1987; Meyer et al. 2016: 3).
For the hybrid virtual teams under study, the geographical distance due to dif-
ferent work locations seems to be the most salient attribute in the context of virtual
teamwork according to normative fit, cognitive accessibility and comparative fit.
Thus, it is proposed to function as a faultline. Indeed prior research suggests, that in
a virtual relationship, people cannot rely on a wide variety of physical or visual cues
like in face-to-face relationships (Fiol and O’Connor 2005). Thus, for virtual teams
alternative attributes needs to be found. Therewith, a subgroup formation based on
faultlines still occurs in virtual teams (Henttonen and Blomqvist 2005), only of an
altered manner, as the evaluation of the interaction partner shifts towards alternative
cues (Lea and Spears 1991, 1992). Thus, hybrid virtual teams may be especially prone
to subgroup formation based on collocation (Armstrong and Cole 2002; Panteli and
Davison 2005). In hybrid virtual teams, a salient cue is mostly the physically present
versus the physically absent team member (Kiesler and Cummings 2002). “Differ-
ences in geographic location are perhaps the quintessential example of a difference
that is easy to observe” (Polzer et al. 2006: 680). Hence, the geographical distance (or
the different work locations respectively) are highly salient and clear differentiators
in hybrid virtual teams, and are thus proposed to be the basis for hybrid virtual team
faultlines (see Fig. 2.2).
Self-categorization. Some of the theoretical underpinnings of the Faultline The-
ory rest on the two interrelated theories of Social Identity and Self-Categorization
(Tajfel 1981; Tajfel and Turner 1986). The pioneering work and respective advance-
ments (e.g. Hogg and Terry 2000; Brewer 2001; Hogg 2001; Haslam et al. 2009)7
argue, that individuals define themselves in a process of self-categorization. People
satisfy their strive for an enhanced self-esteem, combined with their desire to reduce
7 Besides the Social Identity Theory and its sister theory Self-Categorization Theory, faultline
researchers used additional theoretical streams to explain faultlines, e.g. optimal distinctiveness
theory, distance theory, cross-categorization theory or categorization-elaboration model; for further
details see the review by Thatcher and Patel (2012).
Hybrid Virtual
Team
Subgroup at Location 1 Subgroup at Location 2
Faultline of
geographic location
Fig. 2.2 Faultlines and subgroups in hybrid virtual teams. Source Own illustration
uncertainty and/or make sense of ambiguous events and situations (e.g. Hogg and
Terry 2000) through self-categorization and social comparison. Hence, first, individ-
uals define themselves in a process of self-categorization and second, they classify
themselves and others into social categories using salient characteristics. This activity
of individuals naturally sorting themselves and others based upon salient character-
istics, segments the social world into in- and outgroups. The ingroup comprises all
the individuals categorized as similar to oneself, whereas the outgroup comprises all
other dissimilar individuals (e.g. Hogg and Terry 2000; Hogg 2001).
As introduced above, a salient characteristic in hybrid virtual teams is the work
location. Hence, team members are most likely to categorize the physically present
team members into the ingroup and the physically absent team members into the
outgroup (e.g. Polzer et al. 2006: 680), leading to subgroup dynamics.
Categorization-based negative team dynamics. Social-categorizations of the
others surrounding oneself can powerfully shape behavior. Hinds et al. (2014: 537)
recently stated that a near-universal claim for globally distributed teams is, that they
tend to fracture into subgroups and that they are characterized by an us versus them
mentality, due to in- and outgroup segmentation (e.g. Cramton and Hinds 2004;
Polzer et al. 2006; Hinds et al. 2014). The perception of differences as splits into
different social categories in the sense of “us-versus-them” is linked with negative
consequences for the entire team (Van Knippenberg et al. 2004; Thatcher and Patel
2011), as it can have effects on two levels: first, it can (negatively) alter the collabo-
ration between the individual team members and second, it can have negative effects
for the outputs of the whole team.
First, regarding the effects between the team members, to perceive a fellow team
member as an individual belonging to the outgroup, quite likely provokes an inter-
group bias between ingroup and outgroup members. As soon as the different cate-
gories become salient, individuals strive to maintain their self-esteem in two ways: on
one hand they hold positive opinions about their ingroup and on the other hand they
hold negative opinions about the outgroup and its members. The phenomenon, when
those categorized in the ingroup valued more highly, are viewed more positively and
treated better, is labeled ingroup favoritism (Kramer 1991). At the same time, while
upgrading some people, the other individuals, which are assigned with an outgroup
status, are downgraded (e.g. Tajfel and Turner 1986). Intuitively, the individuals’
social identity and self-esteem are enhanced when individuals compare their own
ingroup favorably relative to the outgroup (Tajfel and Turner 1986; Wagner et al.
1986). Moreover, the outgroup is associated with less trust, less liking and increased
conflicts (e.g. Van Knippenberg et al. 2004). This social categorization process linked
to faultlines can even disrupt communication and collaboration between subgroups
(Rico et al. 2012).
More precisely, for geographically dispersed teams, the physical distance
decreases closeness and affinity to the outgroup even more (Mortensen and Hinds
2001: 214). In contrast to distance, proximity is likely promoting more frequent com-
munication and closer and more positive relationship may develop between nearby
team members (Festinger et al. 1950; Athanasiou and Yoshioka 1973). Hence, the
in- and outgroup dynamics are proposed to be compounded by the geographical
distance.
Second, on the team-level, there has been quite a variety of research on the con-
sequences of faultlines, because faultline-based subgroup formation can potentially
help to explain the dynamics caused by the composition of the team (Mathieu et al.
2008), In an electronic questionnaire survey among the top 500 industrial Italian
family-controlled firms it has been shown, that faultlines within the top management
team can have an impact on the performance of the entire organization (Minichilli
et al. 2010). The dominant view is, as it has been proposed in the initial faultline
theory and many earlier studies, that faultlines have negative effects on team-level
outcomes such as team performance and conflict. For example, Hinds and Bailey
(2003) argue that the likelihood of discussing issues decreases among members of
teams with a low shared identity. Due to the lack of discussion the team members
miss out on the chance to work on issues and to effectively solve them together. Con-
sistent with that, in their review of the demography literature, Williams and O’Reilly
(1998) note, that perceptions of “otherness” within a group have “been shown to lead
to decreased satisfaction with the group, increased turnover, lowered cohesiveness,
reduced within group communication, decreased cooperation, and higher levels of
conflict” (Williams and O’Reilly 1998: 84). In line with this review in earlier years,
researcher continue to find that faultlines (negatively) affect group processes (e.g.
increase conflict, reduce cohesion), emotive outcomes (e.g. declining satisfaction)
and performance outcomes (e.g. more complicated decision making, diminishing
group performance; Thatcher et al. 2003; Lau and Murnighan 2005; Sawyer et al.
2006; Polzer et al. 2006; Barkema and Shvyrkov 2007; Rico et al. 2007; Bezrukova
et al. 2009). In contrast to those findings, other studies about faultlines and sub-
groups reveal both positive and negative effects of faultlines on the team-level8 (e.g.
Bezrukova et al. 2009, 2012; Carton and Cummings 2012).
The above elaborations about faultlines show that different work locations may
become a perceived category for the self-categorization in in- and outgroups and can
therewith lead not only to a geographic distance, but also to an ‘emotional’ distance
regarding the dispersed outgroup members. This can become a contextual challenge,
which hybrid virtual team members need to overcome to successfully cooperate with
each other.
2.2.2.3 Contextual Challenge of Technology
Another contextual challenge of hybrid virtual teams, potentially compounding a

cooperation problem, is the imposed reliance on communication technology. This
leads to new sources of trouble for team members in respect of choosing the right
media and communication lapses due to inappropriate media use. While members of
hybrid virtual teams rely on different technology-enabled means for communication
and collaboration, some media may be suitable at a given moment, but be completely
obstructive a little later. Therefore the team members need to develop their capability
to choose the suitable media to successfully cooperate as a hybrid virtual team. Thus,
I will start with conceptualizing technology and afterwards I will reflect upon the
necessity to rely on communication technology in hybrid virtual teams. Then, I will
introduce two theories which are meant to capture the complexity associated with
the reliance on communication technology to interact with each other as a team:
According to the Media Richness Theory, the informational requirements of a task
need to be matched to a media’s information richness, while the Media Synchronicity
Theory describes the appropriateness and use of media according to a fit between
media capabilities and the communication and task needs. Therewith, the theories
provide a good orientation why technology may be a contextual challenge for hybrid
virtual teams.
Conceptualizing technology. Nowadays, almost every team uses technology to
some extent. Communication technologies such as telephone, e-mail, instant mes-
saging and video conferencing can help team members—not just in hybrid virtual
8 Irrespective of the causality, the relationship between faultlines and the aforementioned outcomes
is stronger once the individual team members actually perceive the split of their team into different
subgroups—a so-called active faultline (Bezrukova et al. 2009; Jehn and Bezrukova 2010). Yet, the
effect does not disappear in case the split is not perceived—a so-called dormant faultline (Bezrukova
et al. 2009; Jehn and Bezrukova 2010; Thatcher and Patel 2012). When the two scholars Lau and
Murnighan (1998) started to model faultlines in teams, they pithily conceptualize team faultlines
as analogous to geological faults. Such geological faults are fractures in the earth’s crust and
without external forces these fractures may be dormant for quite a while without being noticed
on the surface (Lau and Murnighan 1998: 328). In a similar vein, faultlines within teams can be
distinguished between hypothetical and perceived faultlines. The hypothetical faultlines are not
necessarily perceived by the individual team members. In contrast, perceived faultlines are those
ones where the team members subjectively perceive that their team splits into different subgroups.
teams but in more traditional face-to-face teams as well—to stay in touch with each
other. “However, these technologies have limitations that can easily lead to misin-
terpretation” (Hinds and Weisband 2003: 29). Moreover, not everybody is aware
of how technology can facilitate or hinder processes and outcomes of a team (e.g.
O’Leary and Cummings 2007). Yet, cooperating via communication technologies
can interfere with knowledge sharing, open communication and a shared under-
standing (Hinds and Weisband 2003). For instance, to interact with each other across
distance requires the anchoring of explicit communication processes (Hinds and Bai-
ley 2003), which in turn have to be enabled by making appropriate use of mediative
communication technology. But the knowledge of how to facilitate the integration of
technology in the communication processes is still limited (Kumar et al. 2009: 645).
“Sending information virtually requires the special ability to select the transmission
medium most appropriate for the message content” (Blackburn et al. 2003: 97). Team
members need to accomplish a fit between media capabilities and cooperation needs
to avert lapses of communication and to overcome the feeling of disconnection (e.g.
Dennis et al. 2008).
The reliance on communication technology. When teams are geographically
dispersed, they are becoming even more reliant on information and communication
technology (e.g. Chudoba et al. 2005; Gibson and Gibbs 2006; Stark and Bierly
2009). Whereby, the degree of reliance on communication technology increases
in line with an increasing virtualness of a team. Just like members of any team,
hybrid virtual team members have to collaborate and communicate to process and
complete their work, to solve problems and to produce a product or service (Berry
2011: 187–188). Regardless whether some team members would prefer to interact
face-to-face with each other, members of geographically dispersed teams frequently
are obliged to rely substantially on mediative communication technology to collab-
orate and communicate with each other (Gibson and Cohen 2003: 404). So it is
basically the geographic dispersion, which determines the degree of dependency on
communication technology among the individual members of hybrid virtual teams.
In this context, choosing the right communication technology for hybrid virtual
team interactions is a difficult process. Whether a certain communication technology
is effective and efficient depends on different factors such as the team’s task, the type
of team and even the own and the fellow team members’ experience with virtual
teamwork (Duarte and Snyder 2001; Berry 2011: 189). The Media Richness Theory
and the Media Synchronicity Theory attempt to capture this complexity.
Introducing the Media Richness Theory. Theories about communication and
technology are abundant (Dennis et al. 2008: 577). Perhaps the most influential and
most widely used media theory is the media richness theory (e.g. Daft and Lengel
1986; Rice 1992). In general, the theory describes that task performance will be
improved when the informational requirements of a task are in line with a medium’s
information richness. And even though the media richness theory did not consider
new media in the first place, it has been retroactively fitted into the theory’s frame-
work. This media theory suggests that media differ in their ability to convey certain
cues or information, or conversely, filtering cues or information out (Dennis et al.
2008: 577). Specifically, media differ in their degree of richness in the sense of
“the ability of information to change understanding within a time interval” (Daft

and Lengel 1986: 560). Face-to-face communication is the medium with the richest
information, as it provides the opportunity for immediate feedback, allowing the
verification of each other’s interpretations instantaneously (Dennis et al. 2008: 577).
Face-to-face interaction also transmits multiple cues via body language and tone of
voice (Daft and Lengel 1986: 560). The types of media, which are only able to trans-
mit fewer cues (e.g. no vocal inflections) or provide slower feedback (e.g. written
communication), are considered as ‘leaner’ in their media richness (Dennis and Kin-
ney 1998: 257). It is noteworthy, that a high media richness facilitates the reduction
of potential ambiguity in two ways: (1) by enabling individuals to overcome different
frames of reference and (2) by providing the capacity to also process complex and
subjective messages in situations, where multiple and conflicting interpretations of
information are possible. As opposed to this, media with low richness can only trans-
mit fewer cues and limit the chance to give feedback. It is therefore less appropriate
for resolving ambiguous issues. Hence, media of low richness are predominantly
suited and most effective for processing non-ambiguous tasks, for instance, easy to
understand messages or standardized data (Daft and Lengel 1986: 560; Dennis et al.
2008: 577).
A theory for new media: The Media Synchronicity Theory. Despite its pop-
ularity, empirical tests of the media richness theory for ‘new media’ have not been
convincing, or at best the results can be considered as mixed (e.g. Valacich et al.
1993; Dennis and Kinney 1998; Burke and Chidambaram 1999; Mennecke et al.
2000; Vickery et al. 2004; Dennis et al. 2008). Based upon this insight, Dennis
et al. (2008) formulated a new theory that specifically incorporates the capabilities
of new media: the media synchronicity theory. With their theory, they argue that the
fit of media capabilities to the communication needs of the respective task signifi-
cantly determines the appropriation and use of media. This, in turn, influences the
communication performance (Dennis et al. 2008: 576). Since its introduction, the
media synchronicity theory has become quite influential, because it matches specific
media with different communication processes and purposes. Therewith, it moves
beyond what the original media richness theory could offer. The media synchronic-
ity theory provides recommendations to enable mutual understandings in virtual
communication processes. The theory proposes, that two primary information pro-
cesses determine the media choice: the convergence of meaning and the conveyance
of information. The convergence process relates to the discussion and negotiation
of diverging perspectives. To distinguish it from the convergence process, the con-
veyance process relates to the exchange and individual decoding of large amounts
of information (Tenzer and Pudelko 2016: 428–429).
Furthermore, the media synchronicity theory also distinguishes between syn-
chronous and asynchronous communication. This differentiation shall support the
identification of the most appropriate form of media usage for each information pro-
cess. The theory recommends resorting to asynchronous media for situations, which
require the sole conveyance of information. Asynchronous media suits best in those
situations, because it allows participants to process large amounts of information
at their own pace and at the time they want. On the other hand, in convergence
processes the use of asynchronous media may hamper the development of mutual
understanding, as the asynchronicity delays or even breaks down the process of joint
sensemaking (Tenzer and Pudelko 2016: 429). Consequently, in order to develop
a common understanding and to facilitate a collective sensemaking, such types of
media are warranted, which support a higher synchronicity, because they enable the
members of the team to “move at the same rate and exactly together” (Dennis et al.
2008: 581). A higher synchronicity may better support the “interactive give-and-take
required to discuss and converge different interpretations of a situation” (Dennis et al.
2008: 582).
Within their media synchronicity theory, Dennis and his colleagues (2008) fur-
thermore distinguish between different media capabilities, which may promote or
hamper synchronicity: rehearsability, reprocessability and parallelism. According
to this differentiation, media characterized by rehearsability enables the sender to
rehearse or optimize a message during encoding and before actually sending it to
others (Dennis et al. 2008: 587). The types of media, which are characterized by
reprocessability, offer the recipient the chance to spend more time decoding the mes-
sages received (Tenzer and Pudelko 2016: 429). If a medium allows parallelism, a
simultaneous transmission is possible, which means that different individuals can
send signals to each other simultaneously. Yet, such parallelism may distract the
team from a common reasoning. Media characterized by these three capabilities—
rehearsability, reprocessability and parallelism—reduce synchronicity. In contrast,
media with a high transmission velocity support synchronicity as they allow a very
fast or even immediate transmission of messages. The same applies for media encod-
ing messages in natural symbol sets, which transmit verbal cues through speaking
along with visual cues like gestures (Dennis et al. 2008: 585–587; Tenzer and Pudelko
2016: 428–429).
Table 2.2 illustrates which media capabilities are represented in synchronous and
asynchronous media and shows how suitable they are for the conveyance of meaning
and the convergence of information as the two primary information processes.
The depiction of these two media theories shows, that the prevalence of commu-
nication technology has a significant effect on the cooperation between the members
of a team. Especially, the imposed reliance on technology to collaborate with the
geographically dispersed members of the hybrid virtual team may limit and restrict
the communication. It can be tricky to choose the most suitable form of media for
each of the information processes with the distant co-workers. On one side, choos-
ing the appropriate media in a given situation may be beneficial for a successful
cooperation among team members, e.g. being able to document the decision pro-
cess to be reviewed later. On the other side, when choosing a media, which is not
suiting the current needs of tasks, communication lapses occur, which may affect
the cooperation between the co-workers of a team. Especially, when for example the
option of face-to-face communication for ‘informal exchange’ does not exist, the
members of the hybrid virtual team have no other choice than to not only anticipate
but also to solve all the problems and misunderstanding by means of communication
technology.
Table 2.2 Media capabilities in Media Synchronicity Theory

Media capability Represented in Applicable for
Asynchronous Synchronous Conveyance Convergence
media: media: processes: processes:
Sender and Sender and The Communicating
recipient do not recipient communicatin individuals
communicate communicate with individuals interactively discuss
with each each other at the exchange large and negotiate their
other at the same time amount and diverging perspectives
same time decode them
individually
Rehearsability: ✓ – ✓ –
The sender can edit and
adjust the message
before sending it
Reprocessability: ✓ – ✓ –
The recipient can decode
the received message at
his/her individual speed
Parallelism: ✓ – ✓ –
The messages
between the
communicating
individuals can be send
and
received simultaneously
Transmission velocity: – ✓ – ✓
The messages can be
transmitted immediately
or at least very fast
Natural symbol sets: – ✓ – ✓
Physical, visual and/or
verbal cues can be
transmitted between
sender and recipient
Source adapted from Tenzer and Pudelko (2016: 430), based on Dennis et al. (2008)
2.2.2.4 Contextual Challenge of Temporality
Another team characteristic bearing the (potential) risk of causing a cooperation

problem within teams is temporality. This contextual challenge is rather counter-
intuitively an important one for the present research, because hybrid virtual teams in
Shared Services Organizations are formally implemented as long-term teams. But as
the context of Shared Services Organizations is characterized by restructurings and
fluctuation, the teams are permanent teams only at first glance because of its tempo-
rality in team composition. While previous research about permanent and temporary
teams has already described potential (negative) effects for the cooperation between
co-workers, it can be assumed that a dynamic composition may even complicate
the cooperation. Thus, I will first conceptualize temporality as a feature of teams,
second, I will differentiate permanent from temporary team structures and third, I
will introduce two theories, which relate to the shadow of the future and the norm of
reciprocity. Because even though not made explicit for communication technology
hereafter, it can be assumed that the social exchange between hybrid virtual team
members is even more challenging when the ‘length’ of the shadow of the future and
the norm of reciprocity are at risk.
Conceptualizing temporality. Team membership was traditionally treated as a
static variable and the composition of the team remained fairly stable. Yet, in Shared
Services Organizations, restructurings, layoffs and fluctuation (e.g. Schwarz 2014)
lead to an undetermined team membership. Consequently, the teams are more fluid
and have to cope with a dynamic composition (Tannenbaum et al. 2012a). In the
context of such a temporality of membership, it can be assumed, that conserving the
expert knowledge and to maintain the same level of quality in the task execution may
be challenging due to these dynamics. In addition, when the teams are permanently
reconfiguring, it may have an effect on the familiarity among the team members, who
‘stay’. And when the team members’ histories of working together differ significantly,
some may have worked together intensively, whereas others may meet each other
for the first time, it likely alters the dynamics within the team as well. Because team-
specific characteristics related to teamwork evolve as time passes and team members
share experiences with each other as a team, ‘new joiners’, who replace ‘leavers’,
may reset the system to an earlier team development stage (Tannenbaum et al. 2012a:
7). In addition, with an increasingly dynamic team composition, team members have
little time to actually establish a common perspective on their tasks, their context or
even about each other (Wageman et al. 2012a: 51).
Differentiating between ‘permanent’ and ‘temporary’ team structures. Time
is generally considered a central element of organizational life (Ancona et al. 2001;
Lee and Liebenau 1999). Therefore, it is important to establish a coherent under-
standing of what ‘temporary’ and what ‘permanent’ stands for. Temporary does not
naturally mean ‘short duration’, but as emphasized in the literature about ‘Temporary
Organizing’, it rather refers to a predetermined duration. Specifically, ‘temporary’
means that at the outset the time boundaries of an organizational process or venture
are explicitly set (Bakker et al. 2013; Burke and Morely 2016). Individuals pur-
sue ex ante agreed-upon task objectives within a predetermined time frame, while
the temporality of the activities is directly tied to the expectation that this collab-
oration will terminate as agreed (Lundin and Söderholm 1995; Burke and Morely
2016). Notwithstanding the intentional finite time spans, the actual duration may
vary between short- and long-term.
Traditionally, ongoing, permanent teams have been the most prevalent type of
teams in the organizational context (Devine et al. 1999). In contrast, in their article
about the typology of virtual teams, Bell and Kozlowski (2002: 33) explicate, that
“the prototypical virtual team is characterized by a discrete lifecycle”. The notion
of a discrete lifecycle implicates, that virtual teams are characterized by a group of
people, who may have never worked together before in that composition and who
usually do not anticipate to work together again in the future (Lipnack and Stamps
1997; Jarvenpaa and Ives 1994; Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999; Jarvenpaa et al. 1998:
30). Such a conceptualization of virtual teams implies permeable interfaces and
boundaries as virtual teams are mostly project teams, that rapidly form, re-organize
and dissolve as soon as the requirements of the dynamic marketplace change (Kristof
et al. 1995; Mowshowitz 1997). Some authors have listed such limited team duration
as a criterion of virtual teams (e.g. Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999; Watson-Manheim
et al. 2002; Martins et al. 2004). Yet, applying the findings from the studies of student
virtual teams that abound in the literature may not hold for ongoing virtual teams.
Hence, some scholars reflect about this in their limitations chapter and propose to
examine the generalizability of their findings from ad hoc or time-limited teams for
ongoing virtual teams as well (e.g. Hobman et al. 2002: 460). But, because ongoing
virtual teams are seldom studied so far, until now we know very little about them
(Saunders and Ahuja 2006: 664).
Moreover, the Shared Services teams are formally defined as ongoing teams,
but they encounter restructurings and a high turnover rate. Due to that, those teams
are characterized by a temporality of cooperation among the members of the team,
despite their official long-term status.
Anticipated future collaboration effects the cooperation. Temporality might
have important implications for the behavior of individuals within social systems
(Bakker et al. 2016: 1708). Yet, neither the constrictive effects linked to temporality
nor the interplay of them have been explored sufficiently (Poppo et al. 2008; Bakker
2010). While prior collaborations among co-workers create a so-called ‘shadow
of the past’ (Grabher 2002; Poppo et al. 2008), the question of whether a future
collaboration can be expected may determine the current behavior between them.
Two concepts may help to explain the behavior: first, the shadow of the future and
second, the norm of reciprocity.
First, as Saunders and Ahuja (2006: 668–669) claim, Axelrod’s (1984: 124)
shadow of the future is a key element in ongoing teams that does not exist in tempo-
rary teams. Other researcher, for example Osterloh and Weibel (2009: 143), argue
for the shadow of the future to be activated in order to foster cooperation, besides the
interaction partners employing a ‘tit for tat’ approach, a second condition needs to be
fulfilled: the relationship must have a long-term outlook. The anticipation of future
collaboration fuels positive expectations and may increase individuals’ willingness
to make short-term sacrifices such as responding positively to co-worker’s inquiries
in order to realize long-term benefits (e.g. Woolthuis et al. 2005; Bercovitz et al.
2006). When expecting to continue to work together with members of a team, this
likely encourages relationship building and increases the amount of non-task-related
interaction, wherefore the nature of collaboration becomes more ‘personal’ (Bouas
and Arrow 1995: 161). Possible future interactions signal value to both parties of
the interaction and hence, for example among others cooperation problems, trust
breaches in early stages of a relationship are less likely (Roth and Murnigham 1978).
Through the lens of Karau and Kelly’s (1992) attentional focus model, which speci-
fies the effect of time limits (as well as other input factors) on group interaction and
performance, the temporality of a team leads to an increased salience of elements
that are more central to task completion. Opposed to such dynamics in temporary
teams, members of ongoing or permanent teams might adapt a non-task focus and
be significantly more attentive to interpersonal interaction (Kelly and Loving 2004:
185–186). Yet, when the relation has a predetermined short duration, it may offer
only limited time to build relationships (Bignoux 2006), a shortcoming which is com-
pounded by the fact that a weak—or ‘shorter’—shadow of the future leads partners
to seek quick and tangible results rather than to develop relationships (Grabher 2004;
Ness and Haugland 2005; Meyerson et al. 1996). Due to the urgency to accomplish
the goals of the team’s tasks and a higher time pressure combined with a limited
anticipation of future interactions with each other, the members of temporary teams
are primarily concerned with effectively performing their current tasks (Saunders
and Ahuja 2006: 668). At worst, the absence of a shadow of the future may trigger
forms of opportunistic behavior in the present situation, such as potentially being less
inclined to support fellow co-workers today, because they might be gone tomorrow
(Ligthart et al. 2016: 1725).
Second, the anticipation of future interactions will affect the norm of reciprocity
(Hoppner and Griffith 2011). The aspect of reciprocity is crucial for developing and
maintaining social exchange relationships (Colquitt et al. 2007). It can be divided into
two analytical categories: reciprocity based on calculation of benefit or reciprocity
based on a sense of obligation or duty (Göbel et al. 2013). While the former describes
a ‘tit for tat’ approach, as explained above (shadow of the future), the latter describes
a norm that compels people to help others, who have helped them and breaking the
rule of reciprocity evokes disapproval and social sanctions (Gouldner 1960). Felt
reciprocity reflects an obligation or “feeling that an individual owes the exchange
partner a maximum amount of energy and effort” (Colquitt et al. 2007: 912). Gouldner
(1960: 173) argues, that once established, positive reciprocity seems to be a ‘self-
perpetuating phenomenon’. To ensure that perceptions of positive reciprocity are
maintained, it must be a mutual support exchange, nobody should feel overbenefited
or underbenefited. It is not enough to simply feel the need to reciprocate others’ sup-
portive behavior—one also needs to act out one’s feelings (Karakowsky et al. 2012:
590). Gouldner (1960) claims that individuals feel a moral obligation to reciprocate
the benefits, which they received. Research has demonstrated that people who feel
unable to reciprocate will feel uncomfortable (Antonucci and Jackson 1990) and that
such negative feelings are exceptionally relevant in professional contexts, as employ-
ees fear to be perceived as incompetent by their co-workers (Karakowsky et al. 2012:
591). “Meeting obligations helps employees maintain the positive self-image of those
who repay debts, and avoid the social stigma associated with the reciprocity norm’s
violation” (Eisenberger et al. 2001: 42). Therewith, in case others have anticipations
towards one, it is difficult to act in a non-compliant manner (Cox 2004; Rigdon 2009;
Carlin and Love 2013). Most researchers have distinguished between positive and
negative reciprocity in dyadic relations (Fehr and Gächter 2000), but have neglected
the content (‘what’) and the timing (‘when’) of reciprocity. The ‘what’ refers to what
is given compared to ‘what’ has been received, while the ‘when’ refers to the timing
of the response, which can either be immediately or later (Hoppner and Griffith 2011;
Swärd 2016).
Temporary relations may be prone to more immediate acts of reciprocity in order
to avoid any ‘debt’ or ‘credit’ (Bignoux 2006), as the social exchange has only a
short-term horizon.
References
Adler, T. R. (2007). Swift trust and distrust in strategic partnering relationships: Key considerations
of team-based designs. Journal of Business Strategies, 24(2), 105–121.
Alderfer, C. P. (1977). Improving organizational communication through long-term intergroup
intervention. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1(3), 193–210.
Alderfer, C. P. (1987). An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.),
Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 190–222). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ancona, D. G., Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Time: A new research
lens. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 645–663.
Antonucci, T. C., & Jackson, J. S. (1990). The role of reciprocity in social support. In B. R. Sarason,
I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 173–198). Wiley.
Armstrong, D. J., & Cole, P. (2002). Managing distances and differences in geographically
distributed work groups. In Distributed work (pp. 167–186).
Athanasiou, R., & Yoshioka, G. A. (1973). The spatial character of friendship formation.
Environment and Behavior, 5(1), 43.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Bakker, R. M. (2010). Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: A systematic review and
research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 466–486.
Bakker, R. M., Boroş, S., Kenis, P., & Oerlemans, L. A. (2013). It’s only temporary: Time frame
and the dynamics of creative project teams. British Journal of Management, 24(3), 383–397.
Bakker, R. M., DeFillippi, R. J., Schwab, A., & Sydow, J. (2016). Temporary organizing: Promises,
processes, problems. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1703–1719.
Barkema, H. G., & Shvyrkov, O. (2007). Does top management team diversity promote or hamper
foreign expansion? Strategic Management Journal, 28(7), 663–680.
Becker, J., Niehaves, B., & Krause, A. (2009). Shared services strategies and their determinants: A
multiple case study analysis in the public sector. In AMCIS 2009 Proceedings (p. 14).
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams implications for effective
leadership. Group and Organization Management, 27(1), 14–49.
Bercovitz, J., Jap, S. D., & Nickerson, J. A. (2006). The antecedents and performance implications
of cooperative exchange norms. Organization Science, 17(6), 724–740.
Berry, G. R. (2011). Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams: Understanding why traditional team
skills are insufficient. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 48(2), 186–206.
Bezrukova, K., & Uparna, J. (2009). Group splits and culture shifts: A new map of the creativity
terrain. In Creativity in groups (pp. 163–193). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., Zanutto, E. L., & Thatcher, S. M. (2009). Do workgroup faultlines help or
hurt? A moderated model of faultlines, team identification, and group performance. Organization
Science, 20(1), 35–50.
Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012). The effects of alignments: Examining
group faultlines, organizational cultures, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1),
77.
Bignoux, S. (2006). Short-term strategic alliances: A social exchange perspective. Management
Decision, 44(5), 615–627.
Bjørn, P., Esbensen, M., Jensen, R. E., & Matthiesen, S. (2014). Does distance still matter? Revisiting
the CSCW fundamentals on distributed collaboration. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
Interaction, 21(5), 1–26.
Blackburn, R., Furst, S., & Rosen, B. (2003). Building a winning virtual team. In Virtual teams that
work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 95–120).
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10.
References 41
Bondarouk, T. (Ed.). (2014). Shared services as a new organizational form. Emerald Group
Publishing.
Bouas, K. S., & Arrow, H. (1995). The development of group identity in computer and face-to-
face groups with membership change. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 4(2–3),
153–178.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307.
Brewer, M. B. (2001). Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict—When does ingroup love
become outgroup hate? In R. D. Ashmore, L. Jussim, & D. Wilder (Eds.), Social identity,
intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction (pp. 17–41). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics
perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 557–591.
Burke, K., & Chidambaram, L. (1999). How much bandwidth is enough? A longitudinal examination
of media characteristics and group outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 557–579.
Burke, C. M., & Morley, M. J. (2016). On temporary organizations: A review, synthesis and research
agenda. Human Relations, 69(6), 1235–1258.
Carlin, R. E., & Love, G. J. (2013). The politics of interpersonal trust and reciprocity: An
experimental approach. Political Behavior, 35(1), 43-63.
Carmel, E., & Abbott, P. (2007). Why ‘nearshore’ means that distance matters. Communications of
the ACM, 50(10), 40–46.
Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2012). A theory of subgroups in work teams. Academy of
Management Review, 37(3), 441–470.
Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarterly,
143–165.
Chudoba, K. M., Wynn, E., Lu, M., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2005). How virtual are we?
Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization. Information Systems
Journal, 15(4), 279–306.
Cohen, L. L., & Swim, J. K. (1995). The differential impact of gender ratios on women and men:
Tokenism, self-confidence, and expectations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(9),
876–884.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from
the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A
meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909.
Cooke, F. L. (2006). Modeling an HR shared services centre: Experience of an MNC in the United
Kingdom. Human Resource Management, 45(2), 211–227.
Cota, A. A., & Dion, K. L. (1986). Salience of gender and sex composition of ad hoc groups: An
experimental test of distinctiveness theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4),
770.
Cox, J. C. (2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 46(2),
260–281.
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed
collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.
Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2004). Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams:
Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning? Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 231–263.
Cummings, J. N., & Haas, M. R. (2012). So many teams, so little time—Time allocation matters in
geographically dispersed teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 316–341.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and
structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.
Dahlin, K. B., Weingart, L. R., & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Team diversity and information use. Academy
of Management Journal, 48(6), 1107–1123.
Davidow, W. H., & Malone, M. S. (1992). The virtual corporation: Structuring and revitalising the
corporation for the 21st century. New York.
Dawson, R., Helferich, J., Cross, R., & Ehrlich, K. (2008). Managing collaboration: Improving
team effectiveness through a network perspective. California Management Review, 50(4), 74–98.
Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects
of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9(3), 256–274.
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use:
Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.
Devine, D. J. (2002). A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams in
organizations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(4), 291–310.
Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams in
organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30(6), 678–
711.
Dollery, B., & Akimov, A. (2008). A critical comment on the analysis of shared services in the
Queensland local government association’s size, shape and sustainability program. Accounting,
Accountability & Performance, 14(2), 29.
Dollery, B., Akimov, A., & Byrnes, J. (2007). An analysis of shared local government services in
Australia. Centre for Local Government, School of Economics, University of New England.
Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. (2001). Mastering virtual teams: Strategies, tools and techniques
that succeed.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of
perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42.
Elston, T., & MacCarthaigh, M. (2016). Sharing services, saving money? Five risks to cost-saving
when organizations share services. Public Money & Management, 36(5), 349–356.
Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2007). Team knowledge and coordi-
nation in geographically distributed software development. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 24(1), 135–169.
Farndale, E., Paauwe, J., & Hoeksema, L. (2009). In-sourcing HR: Shared service centres in the
Netherlands. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3), 544–561.
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. The Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 159–181.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social processes in informal groups.
Forst, L. I. (2001). Management: Shared services grows up. Journal of Business Strategy, 22(4),
13–15.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. Macmillan.
Frost, J., Osterloh, M., & Weibel, A. (2010). Governing knowledge work: Transactional and
transformational solutions. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 126–136.
Froud, J., Johal, S., Leaver, A., & Williams, K. (2006). Financialization and strategy: Narrative
and numbers. Routledge.
George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 191–202.
Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (Eds.). (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for
virtual team effectiveness. Wiley.
References 43
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 499–517.
Göbel, M., Vogel, R., & Weber, C. (2013). Management research on reciprocity: A review of the
literature. BuR-Business Research, 6(1), 34–53.
Gokakkar, R. (2007). Effects of social identity processes on coordination and knowledge sharing in
geographically distributed software teams. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management,
6(04), 281–296.
Gospel, H., & Sako, M. (2010). The unbundling of corporate functions: The evolution of shared
services and outsourcing in human resource management. Industrial and Corporate Change,
19(5), 1367–1396.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological
Review, 161–178.
Grabher, G. (2002). Cool projects, boring institutions: Temporary collaboration in social context.
Regional Studies, 36(3), 205–214.
Grabher, G. (2004). Temporary architectures of learning: Knowledge governance in project
ecologies. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1491–1514.
Gratton, L., Voigt, A., & Erickson, T. J. (2007). Bridging faultlines in diverse teams. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 48(4), 22.
Griffith, T. L., & Neale, M. A. (2001). 8. Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual
teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Research in Organizational Behavior,
23, 379–421.
Griffith, T. L., Sawyer, J. E., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams: Managing
the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly, 265–
287.
Grossman, R. J. (2010). Saving shared services HR managers who strive to operate this popular
business model find that one size rarely fits all. HRMagazine, 55(9), 26.
Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M.W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance
and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational
behaviour (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Harvey, D. (1982). The limits to capital. Chicago University Press.
Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2009). Social identity, health and well-being:
An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology, 58(1), 1–23.
Henttonen, K., & Blomqvist, K. (2005). Managing distance in a global virtual team: The evolution of
Herbert, I. P., & Seal, W. B. (2012). Shared services as a new organisational form: Some implications
for management accounting. The British Accounting Review, 44(2), 83–97.
Herbsleb, J. D., & Mockus, A. (2003). An empirical study of speed and communication in globally
distributed software development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29(6), 481–494.
Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed
teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615–632.
Hinds, P. J., & Weisband, S. P. (2003). Knowledge sharing and shared understanding in virtual
teams. In A. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for
virtual team effectiveness (pp. 21–36). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Studies, 45(5), 536–561.
Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., Irmer, B., & Chang, A. (2002). The expression of conflict in computer-
mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 33(4), 439–465.
Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural
supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 5(3), 184–200.
Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behavior, self-stereotyping and the salience of
social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(4), 325–340.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational
contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M. E. (2012). Beyond team types and taxonomies:
A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management Review,
37(1), 82–106.
Hoppner, J. J., & Griffith, D. A. (2011). The role of reciprocity in clarifying the performance payoff
of relational behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 920–928.
Howcroft, D., & Richardson, H. (2012). The back office goes global: Exploring connections and
contradictions in shared service centres. Work, Employment & Society, 26(1), 111–127.
IBM White Paper. (2011). Today’s shared services operating models: The engine behind enterprise
transformation. IBM Global Process Services.
Iveroth, E. (2011). The sociomaterial practice of IT-enabled change: A case study of a global
transformation. Journal of Change Management, 11(3), 375–395.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and
fiascoes.
Janssen, M., & Joha, A. (2006). Motives for establishing shared service centers in public
administrations. International Journal of Information Management, 26(2), 102–115.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1994). The global network organization of the future: Information
management opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(4),
25–57.
global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29–64.
Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2010). The faultline activation process and the effects of activated
faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes,112(1), 24-42.
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic
review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599–627.
Karakowsky, L., DeGama, N., & McBey, K. (2012). Facilitating the Pygmalion effect: The over-
looked role of subordinate perceptions of the leader. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 85(4), 579–599.
Karau, S. J., & Kelly, J. R. (1992). The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group
performance quality and interaction process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(6),
542–571.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical
integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance
organization. Harvard Business Press.
Keep, L. (2001). Models of provision and the move to shared services: Continuing the emergent
review. Bristol: NHS.
Kelle, U. (1996). Die Bedeutung theoretischen Vorwissens in der Methodologie der Grounded
Theory. In R. Strobl & A. Böttger (Eds.), Wahre Geschichten? Zur Theorie und Praxis qualitativer
Interviews (pp. 23–48). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Kelly, J. R., & Loving, T. J. (2004). Time pressure and group performance: Exploring underlying
processes in the attentional focus model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(2),
185–198.
Kennewell, S., & Baker, L. (2016). Benefits and risks of shared services in healthcare. Journal of
Health Organization and Management, 30(3), 441–456.
References 45
Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work
groups? A legacy of research. In Distributed work (Vol. 1, pp. 57–80).
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five challenges
to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(3),
67–79.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In Handbook of
psychology (Vol. 2, No. 14, pp. 333–375).
KPMG Report. (2015). Service Management in der Shared Service Organisation. Ergebnis einer
empirischen Untersuchung zum Reifegrad von Shared Service Organisationen. Im Auftrag des
Instituts für Accounting, Controlling und Auditing der Universität St. Gallen.
Kramer, R. M. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas—The role of categorization
processes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 191–228.
Kristof, A. L., Brown, K. G., Sims, H. P., & Smith, K. A. (1995). The virtual team: A case study
and inductive model. In Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Knowledge work in
teams (Vol. 2, pp. 229–253).
Kruse, J. (2014). Qualitative Interviewforschung. Ein integrativer Ansatz. Beltz Juventa.
Kumar, K., van Fenema, P. C., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2009). Offshoring and the global distribution
of work—Implications for task interdependence theory and practice. Journal of International
Lacity, M. C., Willcocks, L. P., & Rottman, J. W. (2008). Global outsourcing of back office services:
Lessons, trends, and enduring challenges. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal, 1(1),
13–34.
Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343–356.
Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and
consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822.
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional
dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325–340.
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of
demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 645–659.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group
decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(2), 283–301.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated commu-
nication. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 2(3–4), 321–341.
Lee, H., & Liebenau, J. (1999). Time in organizational studies: Towards a new research direction.
Organization Studies, 20(6), 1035–1058.
Leenders, R. T. A., Van Engelen, J. M., & Kratzer, J. (2003). Virtuality, communication, and new
product team creativity: A social network perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, 20(1), 69–92.
Lentz, S. S. (1996). Hybrid organization structures: A path to cost savings and customer
responsiveness. Human Resource Management (1986–1998), 35(4), 453.
Ligthart, R., Oerlemans, L., & Noorderhaven, N. (2016). In the shadows of time: A case study of
flexibility behaviors in an interorganizational project. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1721–1743.
Lin, T. C., & Huang, C. C. (2010). Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: The role of social
exchange and social cognitive on project teams. Information & Management, 47(3), 188–196.
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Working across space, time, and organizations.
Wiley.
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1999). Virtual teams: The new way to work. Strategy & Leadership,
27(1), 14–19.
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: People working across boundaries with technology.
Wiley.
Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 11(4), 437–455.
Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2004). Enabling knowledge creation in far-flung teams: Best
practices for IT support and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(4), 75–88.
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. The Academy of
Management Perspectives, 21(1), 60–70.
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where
do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805–835.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A
review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3),
410–476.
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2013). Achieving optimal team
composition for success. In Developing and enhancing high-performance teams: Evidence-based
practices and advice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team
dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11(5), 473–492.
Maznevski, M. L., & Athanassiou, N. A. (2006). Guest editors’ introduction to the focused issue:
A new direction for global teams research. Management International Review, 46(6), 631–646.
Mennecke, B. E., Valacich, J. S., & Wheeler, B. C. (2000). The effects of media and task on user
performance: A test of the task-media fit hypothesis. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9(6),
507–529.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., Jimenez-Rodriguez, M., Wildman, J., & Shuffler,
M. (2011). A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 214–225.
Meyer, B., Shemla, M., & Schermuly, C. C. (2011). Social category salience moderates the effect
of diversity faultlines on information elaboration. Small Group Research, 1046496411398396.
Meyer, B., Schermuly, C. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). That’s not my place: The interacting effects
of faultlines, subgroup size, and social competence on social loafing behavior in work groups.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(1), 31–49.
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In Trust
in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 166–195).
Minichilli, A., Corbetta, G., & MacMillan, I. C. (2010). Top management teams in family-controlled
companies: ‘Familiness’, ‘faultlines’, and their impact on financial performance. Journal of
Management Studies, 47(2), 205–222.
Molleman, E. (2005). Diversity in demographic characteristics, abilities and personality traits: Do
faultlines affect team functioning? Group Decision and Negotiation, 14(3), 173–193.
Monge, P. R., Rothman, L. W., Eisenberg, E. M., Miller, K. I., & Kirste, K. K. (1985). The dynamics
of organizational proximity. Management Science, 31(9), 1129–1141.
Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordina-
tion and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6),
1251–1262.
Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. J. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed
teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(3), 212–238.
Mowshowitz, A. (1997). Virtual organization. Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 30–37.
Ness, H., & Haugland, S. A. (2005). The evolution of governance mechanisms and negotiation
strategies in fixed-duration interfirm relationships. Journal of Business Research, 58(9), 1226–
1239.
Nixon, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Lee, H. U., & Jeong, E. (2004). Market reactions to announcements
of corporate downsizing actions and implementation strategies. Strategic Management Journal,
25(11), 1121–1129.
Ocker, R., Zhang, Y., Hiltz, S. R., & Ronson, M. B. (2009). Determinants of partially distributed
team performance: A path analysis of socio-emotional and behavioral factors. In AMCIS 2009
Proceedings (p. 707).
References 47
Offermann, L. R., & Spiros, R. K. (2001). The science and practice of team development: Improving
the link. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 376–392.
O’Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics
of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31(3), 433–452.
O’Leary, M. B., & Mortensen, M. (2010). Go (con)figure: Subgroups, imbalance, and isolates in
geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 21(1), 115–131.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization
Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.
Osterloh, M., & Weibel, A. (2009). The governance of explorative knowledge production. In
Knowledge governance-processes and perspectives (pp. 138–165).
Oshri, I., Kotlarsky, J., & Willcocks, L. P. (2015). The Handbook of Global Outsourcing and
Offshoring 3rd Edition. Springer.
Panteli, N., & Davison, R. M. (2005). The role of subgroups in the communication patterns of global
virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(2), 191–200.
Pauleen, D. J. (2003). Lessons learned crossing boundaries in an ICT-supported distributed team.
Journal of Global Information Management, 11(4), 1–19.
Peters, T. (1992). Liberation management: Necessary disorganization for the nanosecond nineties.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
MIS Quarterly, 365–395.
Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline model
to geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group functioning.
Poppo, L., Zhou, K. Z., & Ryu, S. (2008). Alternative origins to interorganizational trust: An
interdependence perspective on the shadow of the past and the shadow of the future. Organization
Science, 19(1), 39–55.
PwC Study. (2011). Shared service centers—‘The 2nd generation’. PricewaterhouseCoopers AG.
Quinn, B., Cooke, R., & Kris, A. (2000). Shared services: Mining for corporate gold. Financial
Times, Prentice Hall.
Ramphal, R. R. (2011). The performance of South African shared services. South African Journal
of Industrial Engineering, 22(1), 45–54.
Redman, T., Snape, E., Wass, J., & Hamilton, P. (2007). Evaluating the human resource shared
services model: Evidence from the NHS. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 18(8), 1486–1506.
Reilly, P. (2000). HR shared services and the realignment of HR (Vol. 368). London, UK: Institute
of Employment Studies.
Reilly, P. (2014). Managing the boundaries better: The key to more effective HR shared services. In
T. Bondarouk (Ed.), Shared services as a new organizational form (pp. 17–38). Emerald Group
Publishing.
Rice, R. E. (1992). Task analyzability, use of new media, and effectiveness: A multi-site exploration
of media richness. Organization Science, 3(4), 475–500.
Rico, R., Molleman, E., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., & Van der Vegt, G. S. (2007). The effects of
diversity faultlines and team task autonomy on decision quality and social integration. Journal
Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Antino, M., & Lau, D. (2012). Bridging team faultlines by
combining task role assignment and goal structure strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
97(2), 407-420.
Rigdon, M. (2009). Trust and reciprocity in incentive contracting. Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization, 70(1), 93–105.
Roth, A. E., & Murnighan, J. K. (1978). Equilibrium behavior and repeated play of the prisoner’s
dilemma. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 17(2), 189–198.
Rothwell, A. T., Herbert, I. P., & Seal, W. (2011). Shared service centers and professional
employability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 241–252.
Rulke, D. L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2000). Distribution of knowledge, group network structure, and
group performance. Management Science, 46(5), 612–625.
Salas, E., Dickenson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding
of team performance and training. In R. J. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and
performance (pp. 3–29). Ablex.
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group
Research, 36(5), 555–599.
Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance:
Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50(3), 540–547.
Saunders, C. S., & Ahuja, M. K. (2006). Are all distributed teams the same? Differentiating between
temporary and ongoing distributed teams. Small Group Research, 37(6), 662–700.
Sawyer, J. E., Houlette, M. A., & Yeagley, E. L. (2006). Decision performance and diversity
structure: Comparing faultlines in convergent, crosscut, and racially homogeneous groups.
Schulz, V., & Brenner, W. (2010). Characteristics of shared service centers. Transforming
Government: People, Process and Policy, 4(3), 210–219.
Schwarz, G. (2014). Public shared service centers: A theoretical and empirical analysis of US
public sector organizations (Vol. 16). Springer.
Schweitzer, L., & Duxbury, L. (2010). Conceptualizing and measuring the virtuality of teams.
Information Systems Journal, 20(3), 267–295.
Shemla, M., Meyer, B., Greer, L., & Jehn, K. A. (2014). A review of perceived diversity in teams:
Does how members perceive their team’s composition affect team processes and outcomes?
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(1).
Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M., & Ernst, H. (2014). Subjective distance and team collaboration in distributed
teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 765-779.
Snow, C. C., Snell, S. A., Davison, S. C., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Use transnational teams to
globalize your company. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 50–67.
Soalheira, J., & Timbrell, G. (2014). What is shared services? In Shared services as a new
organizational form (pp. 67–84). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Sole, D., & Edmondson, A. (2002). Situated knowledge and learning in dispersed teams. British
Journal of Management, 13(S2), S17–S34.
Sparrow, P., Brewster, C., & Harris, H. (2004). Globalizing human resource management. Routledge
Global Human Resource Management Series. New York, USA: Routledge.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational
communication. Management Science, 32(11), 1492–1512.
Stark, E. M., & Bierly, P. E., III. (2009). An analysis of predictors of team satisfaction in product
development teams with differing levels of virtualness. R&D Management, 39(5), 461–472.
Starritt, N. (2002). Offloading the admin—An HR guide to outsourcing what you should know
before embarking on the outsourcing route. In Human Resources London UMAN (pp. 48–53).
Strübing, J. (2004). Grounded Theory. Zur sozialtheoretischen und epistemologischen Fundierung
des Verfahrens der empirischen begründeten Theoriebildung. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Suleiman, J., & Watson, R. T. (2008). Social loafing in technology-supported teams. Computer
Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 17(4), 291–309.
Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness.
American Psychologist, 45(2), 120.
Swärd, A. (2016). Trust, reciprocity, and actions: The development of trust in temporary inter-
organizational relations. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1841–1860.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel
& W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012a). Teams are changing—Are
research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1),
2–24.
References 49
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012b). On teams—Unifying themes
and the way ahead. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 56–61.
Tenzer, H., & Pudelko, M. (2016). Media choice in multilingual virtual teams. Journal of
International Business Studies, 47(4), 427–452.
Thatcher, S., & Patel, P. C. (2011). Demographic faultlines: A meta-analysis of the literature. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 969–1009.
Thatcher, S. M., & Patel, P. C. (2012). Group faultlines: A review, integration, and guide to future
research. Journal of Management, 38(4), 969–1009.
Thatcher, S. M., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity research: The effects of
diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(3), 217–241.
Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and
the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17–29.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering
the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
Ulrich, D. (1997). Measuring human resources: An overview of practice and a prescription for
results. Human Resource Management, 36(3), 303–320.
Ulrich, D., & Brockbank, W. (2005). The HR value proposition. Harvard Business Press.
Valacich, J. S., Paranka, D., George, J. F., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1993). Communication concurrency
and the new media a new dimension for media richness. Communication Research, 20(2), 249–
276.
Valacich, J. S., George, J. F., Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., & Vogel, D. R. (1994). Physical proximity effects
on computer-mediated group idea generation. Small Group Research, 25(1), 83–104.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group
performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6),
1008.
Vickery, S. K., Droge, C., Stank, T. P., Goldsby, T. J., & Markland, R. E. (2004). The perfor-
mance implications of media richness in a business-to-business service environment: Direct versus
indirect effects. Management Science, 50(8), 1106–1119.
Wageman, R., Gardner, H., & Mortensen, M. (2012a). Teams have changed: Catching up to the
future. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 48–52.
Wageman, R., Gardner, H., & Mortensen, M. (2012b). The changing ecology of teams: New
directions for teams research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 301–315.
Wagner, J. A., III. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups.
Wagner, U., Lampen, L., & Syllwasschy, J. (1986). In-group inferiority, social identity and out-
group devaluation in a modified minimal group study. British Journal of Social Psychology,
25(1), 15–23.
Watson-Manheim, B. M., Chudoba, K. M., & Crowston, K. (2002). Discontinuities and continuities:
A new way to understand virtual work. Information Technology & People, 15(3), 191–209.
Webster, J., & Staples, D. S. (2006). Comparing virtual teams to traditional teams—An identification
of new research opportunities. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 25,
181–215.
Webster, J., & Wong, W. K. P. (2008). Comparing traditional and virtual group forms—Identity,
communication and trust in naturally occurring project teams. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 19(1), 41–62.
Wildman, J. L., Shuffler, M. L., Lazzara, E. H., Fiore, S. M., Burke, C. S., Salas, E., et al. (2012). Trust
development in swift starting action teams: A multilevel framework. Group and Organization
Management, 37(2), 137–170.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. (1998). A review of 40 years of research. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.
Williams, K., Harkins, S. G., & Latané, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrant to social loafing:
Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 303.
Woolthuis, R. K., Hillebrand, B., & Nooteboom, B. (2005). Trust, contract and relationship
development. Organization Studies, 26(6), 813–840.
47(4), 592–603.
Zander, L., Zettinig, P., & Mäkelä, K. (2013). Leading global virtual teams to success. Organiza-
tional Dynamics, 42(3 SI), 228–237.
Chapter 3
Theory: Solutions to Foster Cooperation
The cooperative behavior among members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Ser-
vices Organizations is at risk due to the contextual challenges related to distance,
technology and temporality (see Sect. 2.2.2). As formal control is usually missing in
such teams, it becomes a team task to ensure cooperation. Therefore, the solutions
to overcome the cooperation problem in such teams need to foster cooperation in a
constructive way and they also need to be decentralized or team-based approaches.
In respect to that, I identified three solutions for the contextual challenges of hybrid
virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations, which I will present in this chapter as
sensitizing concepts. Thus, I will (1) outline the selection criteria for the sensitizing
concepts of solutions to foster cooperation. Then, I will describe each of the three
solutions in more detail, wherefore I will introduce (2) identification, (3) trust and
(4) peer monitoring as sensitizing concepts. For each of these three solutions I will
depict how and why they foster cooperation in the context of hybrid virtual teams in
3.1 Overview: Sensitizing Concepts to Foster Cooperation
Sensitizing concepts are insight-leading concepts and shall give a general sense
of reference and guidance, not only for the theoretical reflections, but also for the
empirical research. The researcher’s theoretical sensitivity evolves from the definition
of such sensitizing concepts and may further cultivate during the process of research
(Blumer 1954, 2004; Kruse 2014). In that tradition, I searched the literature for
solutions to foster cooperation with fulfill the following selection criteria: first, team-
based approaches, i.e. can be pursued by the individual members of the team and thus
do not require formally assigned managers with second, empirical evidence to foster
cooperation and third, constructive in the sense of steering the team members towards
organizational goals. Yet, besides these theoretical thoughts, my initial encounters
with informants of the research field coupled with my previous work experience in
this specific team context informed my decision as a researcher whether a particular
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34300-2_3
52 3 Theory: Solutions to Foster Cooperation
solution to foster cooperation may be worth to further delve into as a sensitizing

concept or not (see Sect. 4.2.1).
First, the selection criteria of team-based or decentralized approaches is relevant,
because traditionally the cooperation problem has been referred to as one of the core
managerial tasks (Miller 1992; Pfeffer 1997), which has been addressed by formal
managerial control (Weibel 2007). Yet, the context of virtual knowledge work poses
severe supervising problems to managers (Alnuaimi et al. 2010). As a result, these
virtual teams, which are more self-managed than traditional teams, have to find ways
to self-develop, self-regulate and self-discipline themselves (Tannenbaum et al. 2012:
15). Thus, the member’s willingness to take joint responsibility for the team’s effort
and performance is critical to the success of their teamwork (Carte et al. 2006),
especially when the individual team members depend on one another to complete
their tasks. Such interdependency has two effects: (a) it increases the team members’
sense of responsibility for the behavior of one another (Kiggundu 1983, b) it raises
the level of motivation to demonstrate teamwork behaviors (Campion et al. 1993).
Concluding this argument, the solutions to foster cooperation, which may be selected
as sensitizing concept, have to be team-based and decentralized solutions.
Second, the solutions to overcome the cooperation problem need to fulfill the selec-
tion criteria of providing empirical evidence to foster cooperation within teams and
thus among the individual team members. With only selecting solution approaches
with such empirical evidence, in the study presented in this book, this positive relation
between the solution and cooperation will be taken for granted. Thereby, cooperation
is defined “as the willful contribution of personal effort to the completion of inter-
dependent jobs” (Wagner III 1995: 152), yet the empirical evidence of the solutions
to foster such cooperation do not necessarily be restricted to the context of hybrid
virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations. This is, because the solutions with
empirical evidence of being positively related with cooperation in other contexts,
will still function well as sensitizing concepts to be insight-leading for the research
context of interest.
Third, the selection criteria of solutions which are constructive in the sense of
steering the team members towards organizational goals is important in order to
exclude solutions, which bear the risk of being counter-productive for the team and
the organization.
Concluding, these selection criteria ensure to only delve into solutions to foster
cooperation, which are team-based, have empirical evidence and are constructive
approaches to foster cooperation within teams. Therewith, a couple of approaches,
which may foster cooperation, such as managerial control, power, organizational
politics and punishments on the peer level have been excluded from further theoretical
reflections. Instead, identification, trust and peer monitoring have been selected as
sensitizing concepts for the study presented in this book as they all fulfill the above
mentioned criteria. In what way each of them can be solutions for members of hybrid
virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations to foster cooperation within their team
will be outlined in detail hereafter.
3.2 Identification to Foster Cooperation 53
3.2 Identification to Foster Cooperation
When individuals identify with each other, this promotes cooperative behavior.
Thereby, the identification can happen between individual team members, within
subgroups or the team as a whole. The existence of a superordinate identity can
promote the collaboration in hybrid virtual teams, despite the geographic distance.
Building on this, I (1) introduce how identification can foster cooperation, before (2)
identification is explained in more detail, and (3), identification is explored for the
hybrid virtual team context.
3.2.1 Identification and Cooperation
Team members’ identification with their team fosters cooperative behavior. Such
identification can be promoted by establishing a common or superordinate identity,
which the individual team members can relate to and therewith move beyond their
subordinate identities on the subgroup level. In organizational research and related
disciplines, the dynamics of identification in the context of organizations have been
one of the most studied topics in recent years (e.g. Albert et al. 2000; Pratt 2001;
Corley et al. 2006; Scott 2007). As a result of the continuously increasing use of
teamwork in organizations, the aspect of members’ identification with their team has
attracted substantial attention.
Theoretical as well as empirical contributions help to understand the positive rela-
tionship between identification and cooperation. First, theoretical thoughts, which
used social identity theory as a lens, have linked team identification with team effec-
tiveness (e.g. Lembke and Wilson 1998: 927 ff.). Individual team members may be
inclined to identify with a salient team identity and this identification may moti-
vate them to engage in behaviors that safeguard the welfare of their team (Brickson
2000). Studies or models show that team identification is positively linked to the
willingness of the team members to engage in cooperative activities that are benefi-
cial for their team (Tyler and Blader 2001: 207, 2003). With a team identity, the team
members more likely exert effort and avoid conflict with their teammates, because
the success of the team becomes their personal interest (see Tyler and Blader 2000
for a review). Hence, most theoretical studies show that individuals, who are highly
identified with their teams, are more likely to engage in cooperative exchange with
each other (Dewitte and De Cremer 2001; Han and Harms 2010: 27).
Second, there are two types of empirical evidence on identification and positive
work-related attitudes and outcomes: quantitative survey studies and experiments.
Most survey studies have shown that a strong team identity plays an essential role for
workplace processes and outcomes and can be a key antecedent of effective function-
ing and success. In more detail those studies prove a positive relationship between
identification and cooperation (e.g. Tyler and Blader 2000: 17; Bartel 2001: 379;
Dukerich et al. 2002: 507), team cohesion (Jehn et al. 1999: 741), work motivation
(e.g. Jehn et al. 1999: 741) and job satisfaction (Van Dick and Wagner 2002: 129).
Identification with the team cannot only increase the commitment and citizenship
behavior within the team (Chattopadhyay 1999: 279) but also decrease affective and
task conflicts (e.g. Mortensen and Hinds 2001).
In addition, psychological experiments show, in consistency with the above, that
individuals highly identified with their teams prevent dysfunctional group processes
(e.g. van Vugt and Hart 2004: 585). Brown and Wade (1987) show in an experimental
study that those groups, which lack a team identity, perform worse compared to those
teams with an established identity. Specifically, on the basis of their experimental
results, Moore et al. (1999) stress that a missing shared team identity can significantly
hamper a team’s ability to build rapport and to reach consensus (Moore et al. 1999).
In sum, there is a lot of evidence from survey and experimental research on the
positive relationship between group identification and cooperation. However, almost
all of the above mentioned studies are conducted in a collocated and not in a virtual
environment.
3.2.2 Conceptualizing Identification
Identification is conceptualized in relation to identity as a “self-referential description

that provides contextually appropriate answers to the questions ‘Who am I?’ or ‘Who
are we?’” (Ashforth et al. 2008: 327). In organizational studies identification is mostly
conceptualized on the micro level referring to one’s social identity. To understand
this concept, I first define team identification and second explain the concepts of
superordinate identity and cross-categorization.
Definition of team identification. Team identification refers to “the process by
which individual team members perceive themselves in terms of the values, goals,
attitudes, and behaviors they share with other team members” (Janssen and Huang
2008: 70–71). The idea of team identification can be regarded as the application of
social identity theory to the team setting. Thus it refers to how team members feel
“psychologically intertwined with the group’s fate” (Mael and Ashforth 1995: 310).
When members identify with their team, they consider the goals of their team as their
own goals and they are ready to boost their efforts to accomplish these goals. The
team members will devote more attention to share information and knowledge more
openly and freely with each other and they will help one another to bring each other
closer to the team goals. Moreover, frequent interactions and an open communication
can foster trust within the team (Han and Harms 2010: 24).
Superordinate identity and cross categorization in teams. As elaborated
before, social identity theory suggests, that individuals cope with ambiguity and
try to enhance their self-esteem by categorizing themselves and their co-workers in
groups based upon perceived similarity. They create ‘ingroups’, comprising those
co-workers perceived as similar, and ‘outgroups’, comprising those co-workers per-
ceived as different (see Sect. 2.2.2.2). Members of ingroups are subsequently evalu-
ated more favorably than those considered part of the outgroup. Although ingroup and
outgroup designations are frequently viewed as interteam phenomena, the differen-

tiation also takes place among subgroups within a single team (Hinds and Mortensen
2005: 292). Based on this assumption, a sense of team identity, or shared identity,
means that team members view all members of their team as ingroup members (Han
and Harms 2010: 23).
Dismantling subgroups and merging them into a new group that performs a col-
lective task, could create a common social identity (Gaertner et al. 2000; Sherif
et al. 1961). Yet, instead of merging groups, researchers have posited and shown
that one can create an overarching superordinate identity that encompasses exist-
ing groups and includes them in a higher-level categorization (Gonzalez and Brown
2003; Dovidio et al. 2006; Crisp and Hewstone 2007). Separate groups or units share
a common social identity when their members derive a sense of belonging or social
identity from a common, superordinate entity. Field research indicates that employ-
ees can develop a psychological sense of belonging to a superordinate identity, e.g.
the organization, even though they are distributed across different groups because of
disciplinary expertise (Van der Vegt and Bunderson 2005), organizational function
(Sethi 2000) or geographic distance (Hinds and Mortensen 2005). The strength of a
superordinate identity describes the extent to which employees in different subunits
derive a psychological sense of belonging to a superordinate group (Argote and Kane
2009: 171).
When reflecting on how to build a superordinate identity, researchers debate indi-
viduals’ motivations for social identification (Hewstone et al. 2002) and which con-
ditions are needed to create the experience of a shared superordinate identity. The
debate hinges on whether perceptual and linguistic cues are sufficient to create the
perception of shared identity or whether a common fate or reward interdependencies
is also needed (Gaertner and Insko 2000). Perceptual and linguistic cues include
whether units are given common (superordinate) or different (subordinate) names,
symbols and artifacts. The experience of common fate occurs when individuals feel
that their outcomes are related. The experience of common fate can be created by
offering a reward for performance that is distributed at the level of the superordinate
entity (Argote and Kane 2009: 181).
3.2.3 Identification in Virtual Teams
Identification in virtual environments is seen as the critical “glue” for collaborations

(Wiesenfeld et al. 1999: 777; Fiol and O’Connor 2005: 19), as it promotes a sense of
togetherness notwithstanding the missing physical contact (Pratt 2001). Yet, fault-
lines and subgroups within hybrid virtual teams are a common phenomenon, putting
the team’s cooperative efforts at risk. To eliminate those emerging boundaries, it is
possible to (1) create a shared identity as a team and (2) foster a perceived proxim-
ity. In addition, (3) virtual collaboration may make diversity less impactful, because
the importance of other cues for categorization may rise and therewith providing
the opportunity for identification. However, empirical research on identification in a

virtual environment is scarce.
Shared identity in virtual teams. Mannix et al. (2002) identify a common social
identity as a key hurdle, which virtual team members have to overcome to effectively
deal with group dysfunctions such as cooperation problems. A natural consequence
of virtual teamwork may be the formation of subgroups, which interfere with a strong
team identity (e.g. Cramton and Hinds 2004; Polzer et al. 2006). Reflecting about
knowledge creation, Argote and Kane (2009: 178) hypothesize, that a superordi-
nate identity may be especially valuable when groups are geographically dispersed,
because a strong superordinate identity may mitigate the negative effects of geo-
graphic distance on knowledge transfer. In addition, such a superordinate identity
may help groups to overcome the costs of diversity while realizing its benefits. The
cohesion that is promoted by a shared identity may be especially important for team
functioning because of the reduced contact of members in a virtual context (Hinds
and Mortensen 2005; Wiesenfeld et al. 2001). In a quantitative student sample with
hybrid virtual teams, the importance of a shared identity was confirmed. Specifically,
when team members feel they have a high level of shared identity with their remote
subgroups, they tend to categorize the remote subgroup as “us” instead of “them”.
As a consequence, they may be more attentive to the status of their remote team
members, which may lead to less conflict and to better performance (Ocker et al.
2009: 7). To figure out whether team identity can mitigate both task and relationship
conflict, Mortensen and Hinds (2001) conducted a quantitative survey study with 24
geographically dispersed teams belonging to five different companies. Their findings
show, that when an individual identifies with fellow team mates, despite the fact that
they are dispersed, the individual will likely evaluate the fellow’s task-related as well
as non-task-related behaviors and actions in a more positive light. This more positive
evaluation of each other can reduce the risk of affective and task conflicts (Mortensen
and Hinds 2001: 212).
Interestingly, people psychologically identify themselves and others as members
of social aggregates, such as departments, organizations, cities and nations based on
a sense of attachment rather than as a result of interpersonal relationships (Argote
and Kane 2009: 171). Thus, although a strong superordinate identity may predispose
members to form interpersonal relationships on the basis of positive regard and
mutual trust, neither the formation nor the continuation of a superordinate social
identity depends on interpersonal relationships (Argote and Kane 2009: 171). For
example, members of geographically distributed groups with few or no ties can still
develop a strong superordinate identity with the team as a whole or the organization
(Hinds and Mortensen 2005).
Perceived proximity in hybrid virtual teams. Perceived proximity to another
person is a possible process that can lead to identification and thus foster coopera-
tion, even across geographical distance (e.g. Rock et al. 2003; Wilson et al. 2008).
However, empirical research on this phenomenon is scarce.
Wilson et al. (2008) develop a theoretical model of perceived proximity in geo-
graphically dispersed teams, defining it as “a dyadic and asymmetric construct, which
reflects one person’s perception of how close or how far another person is“(Wilson
et al. 2008: 979). Thereby, they discuss a perceived proximity to another person and
its relationship to identification. They propose, that perceived proximity to others
(regardless of their actual physical proximity) can strengthen identification and vice
versa (Wilson et al. 2008: 984). For instance, in a study about treasury analysts it has
been show that a high level of perceived proximity led to an increased commitment
to the common team goal (Wilson et al. 2008: 991), as a sign for a common identity.
Thus, they question the conventional wisdom that individuals feel closest to those
fellow individuals, who are in close physical proximity to oneself (e.g. Allen 1977;
Festinger 1951). According to that logic, the perception of proximity does not auto-
matically increase in a linear manner with an actual proximity (Hansen and Lovas
2004). Hence, treating distance and proximity in purely physical terms may cre-
ate an incorrect picture of how people actually experience it (Wilson et al. 2008).
Yet, when the impact of geographic distance is distinct from that of psychological
distance, some scholars argue that using geographic distance “as the sole indicator
of psychological distance would be severely flawed” (Dow 2000: 61). In line with
that argument other researchers identified paradoxical situations as well, showing
that individuals find themselves in situations where they are geographically far from
someone with whom they feel quite close (e.g. Amin and Cohendet 2004; Torre and
Rallet 2005). Such a perceived proximity seems to be possible despite distance and
can have an effect on virtual team identification. However, there is little empirical
evidence on how a perceived proximity can actually be enabled within virtual teams
and therewith enhance identification.
Diversity is less visible in virtual teams. Collaboration via communication tech-
nology offers the chance that identification with the team or with co-workers is more
likely. This is because first, cues for diversity (and thus often subgroup boundaries),
such as gender, age or cultural differences may be less prominent and less relevant in
virtual teams, because of the (limited) media capabilities. Hence, second, the indi-
vidual team members may more likely be able to relate to the cues they share with
each other, such as a team identity.
First, communication technology in virtual teams may lead to a non-salience of
the cultural differences of dispersed team members (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999:
811). For example, in a theoretical paper comparing face-to-face with virtual teams, it
is proposed that the performance of heterogeneous virtual teams is superior to that of
the heterogeneous face-to-face teams. These suggestions are based on the idea that
the reductive capabilities of communication technologies can reduce the negative
effects of diversity (Carte and Chidambaram 2004). Similarly, experimental (Polzer
et al. 2006) and survey studies (Mortensen and Hinds 2001; Hinds and Mortensen
2005) show, that cultural differences are unrelated to team conflict in virtual teams.
One explication can be rooted in the fact, that missing nonverbal cues in many
forms of technology-based communication eliminates a variety of evidences for
potentially existing cultural differences, including different ways to greet, gesticulate
or dress. Even more so, when writing each other, a different type of accent would
not be perceptible, which would again reduce the saliency of differences in cultural
background.
Second, as a result of communication technology making cultural differences

between the dispersed team members less noticeable, the reliance on communica-
tion technology to interact with each other may in part open an opportunity for an
increased perception of similarity among dispersed members (Jarvenpaa and Leidner
1999: 811). Because perceived cultural differences may be interpreted as signals of
dissimilarity, their non- or invisibility could allow other attributes of the fellow team
members become more relevant. Hence, upending the fact that cultural differences
are usually perceived as strong dividing lines within teams, leading to less team iden-
tity (Lau and Murnighan 1998), it could be argued, that the absence of such dividing
lines makes a shared team identity more likely.
3.3 Trust to Foster Cooperation
As trust has shown to be a key variable for enabling cooperation between co-workers,
the following sections will (1) comprise an introduction to trust and its benefits for
intrateam cooperation, (2) I will define and conceptualize trust in more detail, (3)
take a process-view on trust, as the development of trust is dynamic and can be
understood as a social process between different parties. Through that perspective, I
will elaborate how the context shapes trust. (4) I explore trust in the virtual context,
as the development of trust or the process of trusting may not only be different in
comparison with face-to-face setting, but it may also be more difficult to manage.
3.3.1 Trust and Cooperation
Trust is commonly perceived as the ‘lubricant’ of our society and one of the
most important competitive advantages of nations and companies (Osterloh and
Weibel 2006: 17). Within organizations, trust is “the glue that holds most coopera-
tive relationships together” (Lewicki and Bunker 1996: 129). Among team members,
trust has been shown to be a key antecedent of cooperation (Smith et al. 1995). Some
scholars speculate that “perhaps there is no single variable which so thoroughly influ-
ences interpersonal and group behavior as does trust” (Golembiewski and McConkie
1975: 131). Following the same line of argument, some scholars introduce trust as
a fundamental component of any human relationship, powerfully determining how
collaboration in any area of business and industry, locally and globally, will work out
(Child 2001: 274, 277). Therefore some scholars claim, that “because trust facilitates
informal cooperation and reduces negotiation costs, it is invaluable to organizations”
(Williams 2001: 377). In sum, trust is generally perceived as a fundamental feature
of almost any kind of work relationship. Probably due to that, nowadays trust is
one of the most frequently studied constructs of organizational scholars (Fulmer and
Gelfand 2012).
3.3 Trust to Foster Cooperation 59
Generally, trust may enable cooperation, because it enables team members to

suspend the feeling of uncertainty about and vulnerability towards their fellow team-
mates. Specifically, trust generates a leap of faith, wherefore individuals act as if there
was no risk of exploitation and accept their vulnerability based on their positive trust
beliefs (Möllering 2001). This allows them to interact with their teammates as if
this vulnerability as well as the uncertainty were both favorably resolved (Jones and
George 1998; De Jong and Elfring 2010). In team-based designs, trust may foster
cooperation by enabling team members to remain problem-focused, promote more
efficient communication and coordination and therewith trust may enhance the qual-
ity of team outcomes. In addition, team members feel mutually accountable for the
team outcomes, thus within a team others deputize for team members in situations
in which help is required. In that sense, trust seems to be a factor that propels inter-
team accountability to the maximum (Adler 2007: 108). In line with that, trust creates
obligations (Skinner et al. 2014): if others have anticipations towards one it is more
difficult to act in a non-compliant manner due to the norm of reciprocity (Cox 2004;
Rigdon 2009; Carlin and Love 2013). Finally, trust creates a sense of cohesiveness,
an inner obligation to not leave the colleague high and dry by withholding effort (e.g.
Henttonen and Blomqvist 2005; Shiue et al. 2010). Thus, trust increases cooperation
(e.g. De Cremer et al. 2001; Mulder et al. 2006).
Within the trust literature, numerous researchers propose that interpersonal trust
produces citizenship behaviors, promotes information sharing and cooperative nego-
tiation behaviors (Ferrin et al. 2007: 472). The scholarly interest in trust among team
members and its implications for aspects such as team performance has lead to a
proliferation of studies in this avenue of research over the past decades (e.g. Zand
1972; Porter and Lilly 1996; Langfred 2004). Thereby, some researchers have ques-
tioned the robustness of the trust-performance relationship (De Jong et al. 2016: 11).
Some scholars argue that trust should have a negligible effect on team effectiveness,
because it does not enable teams to produce better outcomes (e.g. Jarvenpaa et al.
2004). A recent meta-analysis of 112 independent studies, comprising 7763 teams
in total, examines the relationship between team performance and intrateam trust
and indicates a positive and robust relationship between trust and performance (De
Jong et al. 2016: 9), therewith confirming findings from prior research (De Jong and
Elfring 2010).
In contrast, missing trust causes team members to lose sight of the team’s goals
and interests. Without trust, team members primarily focus on their personal interests
and are more likely to take defensive measures to protect themselves form potential
harm by others. In such situations, the team members consume valuable resources
that could otherwise be spent on team goal achievement (De Jong et al. 2016: 3).
All the more surprising is, that in team research, trust in other team members
has long been a relatively neglected variable (Kiffin-Petersen 2004). It has received
much less attention compared to trust in leadership (for a respective meta-analysis
see for example Dirks and Ferrin 2002). Hence, trust within teams should get a more
important role in future research of trust.
3.3.2 Conceptualizing Trust
Trust is conceptualized as the willingness to be vulnerable based on positive expec-

tations (Mayer et al. 1995; Gambetta 1988). To fully understand trust, one needs to
understand the key dimensions and the antecedents of trust, which are introduced
hereafter.
Definition of trust. Research on trust can be traced back to the 1960s with a
range of influential books and papers written by scholars such as Garfinkel (1967)
and Zand (1972). In the 1980s and 1990s scholars primarily focused on conceptual
aspects related to trust. Since the late 1990s, a variety of empirical and experimental
studies have been published. Similarly, there has been a great range of definitional
debates, which are well addressed by Rousseau and her co-authors or Möllering (for
further details see Lyon et al. 2012: 2). To better grasp the variety of how trust can be
understood, Seppänen and her colleagues (2007) conducted a review and discovered
the existence of more or less 70 different definitions of trust (see also Castaldo 2007).
And although perspectives on trust may vary between disciplines (Rousseau et al.
1998) and between scholars (Colquitt et al. 2007), at the same time and probably to
harmonize the research about the phenomena of trust, there has been a trend towards
a convergence of the conceptual features of trust. McEvily and Tortoriello (2011)
found out with their report based on the Web of Science, that there is one definition
of trust which have been by far most extensively been cited. Most dominant with
over 1300 citations is Mayer et al. (1995) seminal work wherein trust is defined as
the
“willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation
that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor” (Mayer et al. 1995:
712).
It becomes clear, that trust relationships involve two specific parties: a trusting
party, i.e. the trustor as the person initiating and expressing the trust gesture, and
a party to be trusted, i.e. the trustee as the person receiving that trust (Mayer et al.
1995; Lewicki and Tomlinson 2014: 129).
Key dimensions of trust. Similarly to this most popular definition of trust, numer-
ous trust definitions entail two key dimensions or elements (e.g. Ferrin et al. 2008;
Huff and Kelley 2003; Fulmer and Gelfand 2012): positive expectations and suspen-
sion of uncertainty. The positive expectations comprise the trustor’s hope that the
interaction partner will not exploit the granted trust to his or her own benefit and will
behave in ways that are helpful and beneficial or at least neither harmful nor detri-
mental for the trustor. This holds true, despite the possibility of being disappointed
by the other’s actions (Gambetta 1988; Luhmann 1988). Therefore, a prerequisite
for trust is, that it is granted in situations in which one person can loss more than he
or she can gain and where trust bears the risk of harm for that person (Osterloh and
Weibel 2006: 35). There is a general consensus, that risk and interdependency are
conditional for trust to exist (e.g. Zand 1972; Bigley and Pearce 1998; Rousseau et al.
1998). Numerous scholars note, that only such a risk creates the opportunity for trust
(e.g. Hosmer 1995; Lewis and Weigert 1985; Luhmann 1988). The uncertainty how
the counterpart will act is a key source of such risk, as the interaction partners and
their activities can be disappointing for the trusting party. Similarly, Luhmann (1989)
concisely phrases trust as a “risky investment”. That is why the willingness or accep-
tance to be vulnerable implies a suspension of uncertainty. Hence, trust comprises
two elements: (1) on the basis of knowledge of another’s trustworthiness (‘good rea-
sons’), individuals develop positive expectations about the other individual’s actions
in order to (2) suspend the irreducible uncertainty. Such an uncertainty suspension
creates a feeling that the knowledge about another’s trustworthiness is temporarily
‘certain’ and therewith enables a leap towards positive expectations. This leap goes
beyond that what good reasons alone would warrant (Möllering 2001).
Antecedents of trust. In case we neglect blind faith, trustors ground their decision
to trust on two aspects: (1) their disposition to trust others and (2) the perceived
trustworthiness of the interaction partner.
(1) Disposition to trust. The individual level of general trust in others, the so-called
disposition to trust, is formed early childhood experiences (e.g. Wrightsman
1994), anchored in culture (Saunders et al. 2010) and hence relatively stable
over time (Fleeson and Leicht 2006). The higher an individual ranks in his or
her predispositions to trust others, the more this individual expects trustworthy
actions from the others, independent of his or her own actions. In any situation,
such predisposition to trust others affects the decision-making on whether to
actually trust (Kiffin-Peterson and Cordery 2003).
(2) Perceived trustworthiness. The other antecedent for trust relates to the ‘positive
expectations’, which also determine the decision to trust. The “characteristics
that inspire positive expectations” among trustors (Colquitt et al. 2007: 909) set
the ground for the trustor’s judgment of a trustee’s trustworthiness. Such per-
ceptions are very subjective (Mayer et al. 1995). The perceived trustworthiness
is the result of the trustor’s assessment about the trustworthiness of the specific
interaction partner, based on two distinct sources: firstly, cognitive sources;
secondly, affective sources (Lewis and Weigert 1985; McAllister 1995: 49).
First, the assessment of a partners’ trustworthiness is based on evidence about
their past track record (McAllister 1995) and inspires cognition-based trust. This
form of trust relates to “rational reasons for trust” (Nooteboom and Six 2003: 8)
and implies that “we choose whom we will trust in which respects and under what
circumstances, and we base the choice on what we take to be ‘good reason’, con-
stituting evidence of trustworthiness” (Lewis and Weigert 1985: 970). Thus, the
knowledge from past experiences and “good reason” serve as the foundation for
the trust decision. Several elements regarding those rational-cognitive sources of
the trustworthiness perception have been proposed in literature, for example, com-
petence and responsibility (Butler 1991; Cook and Wall 1980). Furthermore, the
dimensions of reliability and dependability must usually be met for trust relation-
ships to exist and develop (Johnson-George and Swap 1982; Rempel et al. 1985).
Other scholars also refer to predictability, openness and loyalty, when reflecting
about the rational-cognitive dimensions of trustworthiness (e.g. Butler 1991). Yet,
most scholarly attention receives the three-dimensional model of cognition-based

trustworthiness by Mayer and his colleagues (1995):
(1) Ability. A trustee perceived to have high task-related competences conveys
trustworthiness based on ability, i.e. “that group of competencies, and char-
acteristics that enable a party to have influence within some specific domain”
(Mayer et al. 1995: 717). Hence, the first antecedent for trustworthiness is about
the knowledge about the work that needs to be done, perceived expertise, spe-
cialized capabilities and qualification (Mayer et al. 1995; Mayer and Davis
1999).
(2) Benevolence. A trustee perceived to have favorable intentions towards the
trustor beyond self-interest conveys trustworthiness based on benevolence, i.e.
“the trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor” (Mayer et al. 1995:
718). Hence, the second antecedent for trustworthiness is about the trustee’s
benevolence, which can be related to a concern for the welfare, loyalty, open-
ness, caring, receptivity and availability (Mayer et al. 1995; Mayer and Davis
1999).
(3) Integrity. A perceived trustworthiness based on integrity implicates that the
trustor assumes that “the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor
finds acceptable“(Mayer et al. 1995: 719). Hence, the third antecedent for trust-
worthiness is about the trustee’s integrity, which can be related to consistent
behavior, discreetness, reliability, fairness and a sense of justice (Mayer et al.
1995; Mayer and Davis 1999).
Second, trust foundations can also be of affective nature. Such forms of trust
contain a strong emotional component (e.g. Williams 2007) and are very affective
in nature (McAllister 1995; Lewicki and Bunker 1995, 1996). Because, how an
individual responds to somebody else is usually not the result of a rational reflection
about the relationship with that other person, but the response rather depends on the
idiosyncratic, personal reactions of an individual to aspects of the other’s physical
self-presentation (Chaiken 1986) as well as the situation and circumstances under
which the two individuals meet each other (Jones and Brehm 1967). The responds
can be so affective in nature that even their mood at the time of the encounter can
determine in which direction the relationship of the individuals develops (Lewicki and
Tomlinson 2014: 108). Such affect-based trust (McAllister 1995) or emotion-based
trust (Noteboom and Six 2003) depends on the emotional bonds between individuals
(Lewis and Weigert 1985). Due to these bonds, individuals emotionally invest in
their trust-based relationships, express concern for the welfare of each other and
honestly care for one another. Individuals, which are bonding in such a way, believe
in the intrinsic virtue of their relationship and are confident that their feelings will be
reciprocated from the counterpart (Pennings and Woiceshyn 1987). Because of this
‘faith’ or emotional security, an individual is willing to depend on the counterpart
(Rempel et al. 1985; McKnight et al. 1998).
3.3.3 Process-View on Trust
The process-view of trust captures that trust is established dynamically, but also
needs to be build by the interaction partners through trusting. However, the latter is
still understudied and not yet applied to a virtual context.
Dynamic model of trust development. Lewicki and Bunker (1995, 1996)
describe how the underlying relationship between trustor and trustee affects the
weighing and selection of behavioral cues. In their relational model of trust, which
they based upon the model of Shapiro et al. (1992), they identify three phases of trust
development in a relationship: first calculus-based trust, second knowledge-based
trust and third identification-based trust.
Thereby the “movement from one stage to another may not be smooth and linear;
it may require a ‘frame change’ in the relationship—that is a fundamental shift in
the dominant perceptual paradigm” (Lewicki and Bunker 1995: 159).
First, the initial phase of the incremental trust development, i.e. calculus-based
trust, describes that “trust is an ongoing, market-oriented, economic calculation
whose value is determined by the outcomes resulting from creating and sustain-
ing the relationship relative to the costs of maintaining or severing it” (Lewicki and
Tomlinson 2014: 107). Shapiro et al. (1992) call it deterrence-based trust. At that
stage, people demonstrate through simple actions that they are trustworthy and, sim-
ilarly, they are regularly testing others’ trust in them. In that sense, calculus-based
trust is a confident positive expectation regarding the other person. This form of trust
is based on consistency of behavior (Lewicki and Bunker 1996: 119). It is grounded
in the assumption that impersonal transactions and the overall benefits, which arise
from the relationship, will outweigh any anticipated costs (Lewicki and Tomlinson
2014: 112). Moreover, calculus-based trust is quite fragile. This means, a single event
of inconsistency can lead to a breach of trust (Lewicki and Bunker 1996: 121).
Second, while calculus-based trust is usually the first stage in developing a trust
relationship, the second stage of trust is called knowledge-based trust. “This form
of trust is grounded in the other’s predictability—knowing the other sufficiently
well so that the other’s behavior is anticipatable” (Lewicki and Bunker 1996: 121).
Knowledge-based trust relies in information and develops over time. Thus, regular
communication and constant contact are key for knowledge-based trust development
(Shapiro et al. 1992). It refers to a general expectancy of the predictability and is
grounded in a common history of interaction. This type of trust is more stable than
calculus-based trust. Hence, knowledge-based trust is not necessarily shattered by
inconsistent behavior (Lewicki and Bunker 1996).
Third, a mutual understanding and identification with the other’s desires and
intentions leads to identification-based trust (Shapiro et al. 1992; Lewicki and Bunker
1995, 1996). Identification-based trust emerges when the interaction partners can
effectively understand and appreciate one another’s wants (Rousseau et al. 1998, who
called it relationship-based trust). Such identification develops as one comes to know
and anticipate choices, preferences and needs of another individual and shares some
of the same choices preferences and needs. Identification between individuals enables
them to think, feel and respond for one another (Han and Harms 2010: 24). Indeed,
a mutual understanding between individuals can reach a point where each one can
effectively act on behalf of the other. Hence, once identification-based trust has been
developed, one individual can serve as the other’s agent and they feel that the other is
qualified to represent oneself in interpersonal transactions (Lewicki and Tomlinson
2014: 108). In order to set the ground for such identification-based trust, Lewicki and
Tomlinson (2014: 117) propose, that it is helpful for the different individuals to take
part in processes that highlight to them that they share common interests or common
goals, show similar reactions to analogical situations or that they are members of the
same group (Brewer and Kramer 1986). Ideally, the different individuals experience
situations together, which explicate that both of them stand for the same values and
principles. These experiences may help to demonstrate their integrity towards one
another. In sum, identification-based trust rests on the perceptions that the values
are compatible with one another, that the different individuals share common goals
and feel emotionally attached to one another, which allows them to have a confident
positive expectation regarding another’s conduct (Lewicki and Tomlinson 2014: 112).
Leap of faith. An early contributor to conceptualizing trust in a process perspec-
tive may be the German sociologist Georg Simmel. Guido Möllering (2001, 2006)
highlights how Simmel conceptualizes trust as a process of interpretation, leading
to expectation supported by a ‘leap of faith’. Adopting this theoretical stance, with
his work on the leap of faith in trust in the face of vulnerability and uncertainty,
Möllering argues that the indicators of trustworthiness need to be incorporated into
a process perspective on trusting (Möllering 2001). This theoretical stance recog-
nizes, that trust includes a certain degree of irrationality (Möllering 2006; Osterloh
and Weibel 2006). In line with that, trust was originally coined as the “affective,
even mystical, ‘faith’ of man in man” (Simmel 1950: 318, see Möllering 2001:
407). This ‘mystical’ element of faith has been associated with the ‘as-if’ nature,
which is characteristic for trust (Lewis and Weigert 1985). Yet, if taken too literally,
the leap-of-faith image may be misleading. Analyzing the original theory of trust
introduced by Simmel, Möllering (2001) conducts his line of argumentation for the
affective and emotional features of trust to stress that it would be too shortsighted
to regard trust simply as weak inductive knowledge (Möllering 2001: 405). Specifi-
cally, Möllering (2001) conceptually works out that trust is a ‘mental process of three
elements’: from interpretation to expectation enabled by suspension. Interpretation
is the “experiencing of reality that provides ‘good reasons’” (Möllering 2001: 403).
These ‘good reasons’ are a basis for granting trust. Expectation is the outcome or
the state reached at the end of the trust process. This state can either be favorable (as
for trust) or unfavorable (as for distrust) towards the potential trustee. Yet, trust also
requires ‘something’ that goes beyond such assessments (Lewis and Weigert 1985;
Möllering 2006). Because the connection between the bases of trust (interpretation of
‘good reasons’) and expectations (outcome) can be too weak, suspension—the leap
of faith—has been introduced as the enabling element for the trust process to actually
take place. Therewith, the mental process of ‘leaping’ is synonymous to the act of
suspension (Möllering 2006: 110). Both refer to a person’s sense-making process
and the attempt to overcome the uncertainty and risk inherent in any relation. Note-
worthy is, that Möllering’s standpoint calls for a ‘highly reflexive’ understanding of
trust “because for every favorable ‘good reason’ there exists an unfavorable ‘good
reason’” (Möllering 2001: 414). Consequently, the trustor’s ‘leap of faith’ is the only
way to find out whether granting trust was justified or not in any particular situation
(Möllering 2006; Osterloh and Weibel 2009: 36). Yet, with every act of granting
trust, risk and uncertainty are always only suspended rather than actually eliminated.
This implies, that the process of suspension has to be understood as reflexive and
very dynamic. A trustor may leap only to find that further interpretation, i.e. further
leaps, are necessary. In other words, self-reinforcing leaps of faith serve as means to
their own ends (Brownlie and Howson 2005: 224).
Trusting. Trust is a result as well as a condition of social interaction processes. If
‘trust’ implies a “willingness of a party to be vulnerable” (Mayer et al. 1995: 712),
then ‘trusting’ would encompass how people generate, maintain, apply and possibly
lose such willingness (Möllering 2013: 286). A recent framework for categorizing
the process view of trusting comprises a distinction between mental and social pro-
cesses of trusting (Möllering 2013). The underlying idea is that trust is more than
a mental process occurring ‘within’ the trustor, but trust is actually a social pro-
cess involving the different interaction partners embedded in a social context. It is
proposed, that trusting as a social process entails behaviors such as signaling, nego-
tiating, sensemaking, contracting, cooperating, reciprocating, investing, imitating or
complying, which may alter the individuals’ mental state. Alongside this differen-
tiation between mental and social processes, the following mechanisms of trusting
have been conceptualized: (1) continuing; (2) processing; (3) learning; (4) becoming
and (5) constituting (Möllering 2013). Thereby, the unifying idea is that ‘trusting’ is
a continuous and dynamic process, which can be placed on a continuum from mod-
erate to pronounced views on trusting, from trust as processing to trust as a process
in itself. Therewith, trusting can be the link between the aforementioned trustwor-
thiness cues—ability, benevolence and integrity (Mayer et al. 1995)—and the level
of trust, a link, which is not defined so far (Möllering 2013; Schoorman, Mayer and
Davis 2007). Trust would be (re-) produced in ongoing processes of trusting (Möl-
lering 2001), which support the positive expectations in the face of vulnerability and
uncertainty. Thereby, trust is created and reproduced through the formation of social
interaction processes, which are repeated over time (Jagd and Fulgsang 2016).
A recent empirical study examines the trust-building practices between clients and
consultants (Nikolova et al. 2015). By acknowledging the process nature of trust as a
leap of faith resulting from socio-cognitive (-emotional) interactions, this study goes
beyond the understanding of the evaluation of trustworthiness in a passive manner.
This approach can be linked to the idea of ‘active trust’ (Giddens 1994). In the attempt
to expand Möllering’s (2001, 2006) original conceptualization that emphasizes the
leap of faith mainly as a mental process, three interrelated trust-building practices
were identified:
(1) signaling credibility and integrity,
(2) defining, negotiating and aligning to client’s expectations to demonstrate

benevolence
(3) demonstrating likability and personal fit (Nikolova et al. 2015).
With that study, they are one of the few scholars, which have empirically studied
how trust actually enfolds in a business relationship, which practices may facilitate
the granting of trust and they have shed some light on the role of social interaction
(Nikolova et al. 2015). Being one of the few exceptions and despite a number of calls
for more process approaches in trust research (Möllering 2006: 77–103; Nooteboom
2002: 84–101) and some dynamic models of trust development (e.g. Lewicki and
Bunker 1996), it is reasonably claimed that trusting as a process is still understudied
and empirical investigations are scarce (Nikolova et al. 2015).
3.3.4 Context-Sensitive Trust-Theories for Virtual Teams
It is necessary to incorporate the context into the analysis of trust, because members of
virtual teams have to deal with context-specific characteristics, which may influence
how trust is build and experienced. The specific form of Swift Trust, an ‘imported’
and category-based form of trust, has frequently been resorted to in the virtual team
context, while other forms of trust have not attracted much scholarly attention.
Context-sensitive trust research. The specific context, in which the trustor
and trustee are embedded, determines their relationship (Hardin 2002). Thus, trust
becomes context-dependent and “details matter” (Messick and Kramer 2001: 89).
Analyzing trust in a context sensitive way is beneficial, because “trust takes different
forms across many different settings, and (…) trust-building and trust-maintenance
processes vary across them as well” (Kramer and Cook 2004: 17). Therefore, schol-
ars have been encouraged to enrich their models of trust with additional variables that
are “unique to studying trust within a particular context” (Schoorman et al. 2007:
351). It has further been proposed to focus particularly on “new, interesting, and
important organizational settings and forms” (Kramer and Cook 2004: 3), e.g. vir-
tual teamwork. When conducting context-sensitive trust research, situational factors
such as the (perceived) level of risk (Das and Teng 2001), institutional constraints
(Barney and Hansen 1994) and domain-specific concerns (Lewis and Weigert 1985)
become very relevant.
Virtuality as the context for trust in teams. Intriguingly, numerous scholars have
argued, that with the rising virtuality of teams, trust becomes more important while
simultaneously also more difficult to build and maintain. On one side, trust has been
called the glue of the global workspace (Sheppard and Sherman 1998; Brown et al.
2004; Crisp and Jarvenpaa 2013). On the other side, it has been claimed that building
trust is the greatest challenge in creating successful virtual teams and organizations
(e.g. Jarvenpaa et al. 1998; Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999; Cascio 2000; Kirkman et al.
2002). It is stated that a “lack of trust can undermine every other precaution taken to
ensure successful virtual work arrangements” (Cascio 2000: 83).
Yet, “trust needs touch (…) high tech has to be balanced by high touch to build
high-trust organizations. Paradoxically, the more virtual an organization becomes,
the more its people need to meet in person” (Handy 1995: 46). Similarly Sirkka Jar-
venpaa and her colleagues hypothesize that “in virtual organizations, trust requires
constant face-to-face interaction—the very activity the virtual form eliminates” (Jar-
venpaa, Knoll and Leidner 1998: 30). Hence, the conventional wisdom used to be
that trust is not only difficult to establish, but it also requires the frequent face-to-face
collaboration between each other (Kirkman et al. 2002: 69). A repeated interaction
and shared experiences combined with shared social norms are said to promote the
trust development (Lewis and Weigert 1985; Mayer et al. 1995). Collocation, or
physically proximity in general, is supposed to reinforce social similarity, to create
shared values and to align expectations, while at the same time heightening the risk
of threats when failing to meet commitments (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999: 792).
Hence, some considered face-to-face encounters as irreplaceable for both building
trust as well as for repaired shattered trust (O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen 1994).
In a nutshell, with all this in mind, one can legitimately ask whether trust can actually
exist in settings such as virtual teams?
Paradoxically though, others argue that only trust can avoid that the geographical
distance between globally dispersed team members leads to a psychological distance
as well (O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen 1994). Despite the fact that there is a grow-
ing body of research specifically focusing on trust in virtual teams (e.g. Jarvenpaa
and Leidner 1999; Crisp and Jarvenpaa 2013), including respective meta-analysis
(e.g. Gibson et al. 2014), which all report that trust is an important variable for an
effective collaboration in virtual teams, trust still remains understudied in virtual
environments. Yet, eventhough trust difficult to build (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999;
Piccoli et al. 2004; Sarker et al. 2011; Saunders and Ahuja 2006), some still hail
trust as the ‘glue’ that sustains virtual teams (Brown et al. 2004; O’Hara-Devereaux
and Johansen 1994; Crisp and Jarvenpaa 2013: 53). In sum, trust is perceived as
essential for virtual teams, as it helps team members to cope with the incomplete,
leaky, unpredictable and at times even chaotic processes of virtual teamwork (e.g.
Ishaya and Macaulay 1999; Jarvenpaa et al. 2004).
As the present research is designed as a context-sensitive approach to trust, it is
noteworthy that trust in virtual teams differs from that in collocated teams in three
important ways:
(1) the lack of social context cues such as non-verbal information, affective and
spontaneous reactions or status cues results in a new way of evaluating another
party (e.g. Powell et al. 2004);
(2) the digitalized work across distance leads to anonymity and self-centreing in
virtual teams (Nunamaker et al. 2009);
(3) the virtual context increases the level of uncertainty (e.g. Fiol and O’Conner
2005).
These characteristics hamper the traditional development of trust (Piccoli and
Ives 2003; Sarker et al. 2011). Hence, most trust scholars focus on swift trust, when
conducting research in a virtual team context (see also Afflerbach et al. 2016).
Swift Trust. Some of the most noticed studies about trust in virtual teams are
about swift trust (e.g. Iacono and Weisband 1997; Jarvenpaa et al. 1998). Even in
more recent research, swift trust is still the most commonly studied form of trust in
virtual systems (e.g. Crisp and Jarvenpaa 2013). Therefore, I first introduce swift
trust in face-to-face teams and second its adaptation for virtual teams.
First, swift trust was originally conceptualized for “short-lived, transient, and
fleeting” temporary organizational structures (Meyerson et al. 1996), which com-
prise “a set of diversely skilled people working together on a complex task over a
limited period of time” (Goodman and Goodman 1976: 494). In such organizational
forms, “there isn’t time to engage in the usual forms of confidence-building activi-
ties that contribute to the development and maintenance of trust in more traditional,
enduring forms of organizations” (Meyerson et al. 1996: 167). Prior to this obser-
vation, research had commonly assumed that trust is strengthened once individuals
spend time with each other to share personal values, views, motives and goals (e.g.
Gabarro 1978). A unique form of trust, which comprises ‘unusual’ properties, may
tie the members of temporary teams, such as for example film or cockpit crews,
together (Meyerson et al. 1996). Meyerson et al. (1996) coin this form of trust as
swift trust and presume that it is a form of collective perception within temporary,
but not trivial, team settings, rather than a form of scaled-down trust (Meyerson et al.
1996). Research about swift trust has shown, that the cognitive components of swift
trust relate to collective perceptions that become “immediately apparent as soon as
the temporary system begins to operate” and are based on “expectancies consisting
of categorical assumptions and interpretative frames” (Meyerson et al. 1996: 175).
Second, Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) extended the original understanding of
swift trust to their examination of trust in (global) virtual teams, based upon data from
electronic mail archives and questionnaires of 350 master students from 28 different
universities, who participated in a six week virtual student team project (Jarvenpaa
and Leidner 1999: 794). They identified behaviors and actions both in early and later
stages of the virtual group work that facilitate trust. Communication via the earliest
keystrokes begins to establish trust. This posits that trust can be developed relatively
quickly. Swift trust formed on first impressions was thus a major driver of trust
in virtual teams. Trust is maintained through task communication and strengthened
further through social communications between the different parties, which explicitly
state their commitment, excitement and optimism about the relationship and their
collaboration. Moreover, the two scholars found that individuals’ initial actions and
the initial responses to one another are critical incidents for trust to develop in virtual
project teams (Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999). The effects of swift trust for virtual
teams are still catching scholarly attention, for example Crisp and Jarvenpaa (2013),
who elaborate on the normative action processes of swift trust and their relationship to
performance. They conducted a longitudinal quasi-experimental study, comprising
68 different virtual teams characterized by a temporary team composition and no
face-to-face interaction, to reinforce the argument that trust is an important ‘glue’
between members of virtual teams (Crisp and Jarvenpaa 2013: 53).
The theory of initial trust is a theory similar to swift trust, which has been intro-
duced by McKnight et al. (1998). According to this theory, when individuals can-
not rely on familiarity and prior interactions with the fellow members of a team,
individuals rely on category-based processing, which renders the self and the team
inseparable. This processing may foster favorable in-group ‘prototype-based’ beliefs
and actions (Hogg and Terry 2000; Tyler and Blader 2001). Applying the initial trust
theory to virtual team, scholars have found support for such self-categorization pro-
cesses generating high initial trust perceptions among members of virtual teams (e.g.
Polzer et al. 2006; Robert et al. 2009).
In addition, Robert et al. (2009) propose a two-stage theoretical model of trust
formation, which comprises swift and knowledge-based trust, in virtual teams. They
tested their model in a vignette study with 203 undergraduate students. They found
out, that the relation is initially dominated by swift trust, but over time the effect of
swift trust declines and knowledge-based trust become more dominant. Specifically,
the individuals may accumulate information to assess the other party’s trustwor-
thiness. However, those are only first hunches for experience-based trust in virtual
teams, especially as their study is based upon a hypothetical scenario without actual
use of communication technology or virtual team membership (Robert et al. 2009).
Summarizing, trust is frequently reinforced as “a glue in virtual team literature”
(Crisp and Jarvenpaa 2013: 53), but research still focuses mostly on swift trust in
virtual project teams. Thus, our understanding of trust in permanent hybrid virtual
teams is still scarce.
3.4 Peer Monitoring to Foster Cooperation
Peer monitoring, as a third solution to foster cooperation, has the potential to ensure
cooperation with co-workers in virtual teams, because monitoring is proposed to
direct team member’s behavior towards team goals in various ways. To underline
that, (1), I summarize theoretical hints and empirical findings on peer monitoring that
are shown to foster cooperation. (2), I describe peer monitoring, including its effects
and (3) introduce some literature about peer monitoring in virtual collaborations.
However, research focusing on peer monitoring to increase virtual team cooperation
is scarce.
3.4.1 Peer Monitoring and Cooperation
Peer monitoring is a specific type of informal organizational control that is performed

by team members to ensure cooperation of their co-workers. This type of control has
not been extensively studied (Loughry and Tosi 2008: 876). In general, informal peer
control takes place among individuals who have no hierarchical or formal authority
over one another (Loughry 2010: 325). Control systems can include both formal
controls and informal controls to keep organizational members to cooperate in order

to accomplish organizational objectives (Cardinal et al. 2004). The focus of this anal-
ysis will be on informal controls, i.e. so-called informal peer monitoring, instead of
analyzing systems in which it is part of the organization’s formal structures that the
different individuals monitor each other (Loughry 2010). This emphasis originates
from the idea that peers often have better information about co-workers than man-
agers do and can detect behaviors that other forms of monitoring might miss (Barron
and Gjerde 1997). Furthermore, in most situations peers understand their co-workers’
jobs quite well and because they are able to capture the relevant contextual infor-
mation in real time, they are in a good position to evaluate the other’s performance.
Thus, they are able to assess whether their co-workers’ actions are suitable for the
respective situation or not (Holmstrom 1982; Fama and Jensen 1983a). In addition,
in line with agency theory, which defines informal peer control consistently as “peer
monitoring” (Loughry and Tosi 2008: 876; Loughry 2010: 325), I focus on peer
monitoring that encourages behavior consistent with organizational interests. Other
types of informal peer control can also encourage co-workers to work against the
organization’s interests, for example performing poorly or sabotaging the firm.
In different streams of literature, peer monitoring has often been positively linked
to cooperation. Theoretical papers in human resource management describe how peer
monitoring may create a liability to increase one’s effort, helps to communicate the
importance of a certain task and may also support peers to concentrate one’s atten-
tion on this certain task (Frink and Klimoski 1998). From a behavioral economist
perspective, peers can influence co-workers to comply with the expectations of the
teams, because the acceptance and praise from the peers may be perceived as desir-
able (Sewell 1998). In addition, from a team research perspective, the information
gathered through monitoring can affect the team performance, because it may help
to identify errors or lapses. When expressing feedback and demonstrating backup
behavior based upon this information, the team can advance from the sum of indi-
vidual performance to the synergy of teamwork, hence it may ultimately boost the
effectiveness of the team (Salas et al. 2005: 576). From a trust research perspective,
McAllister (1995) provides a useful springboard to analyze how peer monitoring can
ensure cooperation by introducing need-based monitoring. “What drives need-based
monitoring is not the desire to generate future obligations or to reciprocate benefits
received, but rather an understanding of the communal nature of the relationship”
(McAllister 1995: 31).
However, research in the field of peer monitoring is scarce. A number of studies
in behavioral economics demonstrate how peer monitoring can benefit principals—
in a principal-agent relationship—using mathematical models (e.g. Ma, Moore and
Turnbell 1988, Varian 1990). In an agency experiment about peer monitoring in
teamwork, Kristy L. Towry (2003) shows, that in teams with mutual monitoring,
horizontal incentive systems should be favored over vertical ones, if a team has a
strong team identity in order to ensure effectiveness. Experiments in psychology
show, that peer monitoring supports to identify opportunities to assist each other,
while it also motivates and encourages poorly performing co-workers to surpass
3.4 Peer Monitoring to Foster Cooperation 71
oneself. Where applicable, peers can compensate their co-worker’s poor performance
(LePine and Van Dyne 2001).
In addition, there is evidence from field studies. From an agency theory perspec-
tive, a quantitative field study in two U.S. companies gives evidence about the impact
of incentive plans on mutual peer monitoring among employees (Welbourne et al.
1995). Some further studies show how mutual peer monitoring in the context of
credit markets in rural areas ensures that the other members of the borrowing group
are not cheating (e.g. Islam 1996, Stiglitz 1990). In a more recent empirical study,
Loughry and Tosi (2008) show based on quantitative field data from an U.S. theme
park that direct peer monitoring (noticing, praising, reporting, and discussing) is
related positively to team performance.
To have a larger basis on research results, I also consult empirical studies from
informal control research. Here, I give an overview about two types of evidence: Lab-
oratory experiments and case studies. Experimental studies in behavioral economics
are mostly focusing on sanctioning possibilities, either monetary or non-monetary,
to ensure cooperation within the team and increase contributions of peers (e.g. Fehr
and Gächter 2000, 2002; Masclet et al. 2003; Fehr and Fischbacher 2004; Nous-
sair and Tucker 2005; Carpenter et al. 2009; Joffily et al. 2014). In consistency
with that, experiments in social psychology show that the possibility to punish peers
through the means of banning non-cooperative team members ensures cooperation
(e.g. Abernethy and Lett III 2005). In addition, there is one famous qualitative study
providing interesting insights in how informal peer control fosters cooperation. In an
ethnographic field study James R. Barker (1993) shows how informal peer control
constrains the team members by developing their own system of normative rules that
controlled their actions in a self-managing team. Interestingly, this self-developed
informal system controlled the actions of the team members more powerfully than
the former hierarchical bureaucratic control system.
3.4.2 Conceptualizing Peer Monitoring
Peer monitoring is conceptualized as a mechanism to align workers’ behavior with

organizational interests. To understand this concept, I first define monitoring and
peer monitoring before second looking at the effects of these concepts.
Definition of peer monitoring. In the interorganizational relationship literature,
scholars conceptualize monitoring as behaviors, which one individual performs to
firstly obtain information and secondly to control the other’s level of cooperation
(Parkhe 1993; Nooteboom et al. 1997). In respect to formal control, monitoring
offers the chance to determine whether co-workers have deviated from agreed-on
rules or not (Bijlsma-Frankema and Costa 2005; Ferrin et al. 2007).
When examining monitoring on the peer-level, as already mentioned above,
agency theory is the most sophisticated theoretical framework to analyze peer moni-
toring as a functional aspect of organizational control. The key distinction of agency
theory’s conceptualization of peer monitoring compared to other theories is its under-

standing of peer monitoring as a mechanism to align employees’ behavior for the
sake of the organization’s interests (Alchian and Demsetz 1972; Fama and Jensen
1983b; Loughry and Tosi 2008: 876). In that literature stream, ‘peer monitoring’ is
defined consistently with peer control, as individuals noticing and responding to their
peers’ behavior and their performance results (Loughry and Tosi 2008) or individuals
overseeing their peers’ behavior and their work (Welbourne and Ferrante 2008). Peer
monitoring as this kind of informal control is understood as to “keep track of fellow
team members’ work while carrying out their own (…) to ensure that everything is
running as expected and (…) to ensure that they are following procedures correctly”,
i.e. procedures are complied to (McIntyre and Salas 1995: 23; Salas et al. 2005: 575).
Other scholars conceptualize peer monitoring also broader than the term ‘mon-
itoring’ would implicate, when they state that “peer monitoring involves setting
standards, observing peers’ results, and sanctioning co-workers if their efforts are
below the monitor’s standards, so that peers influence one another’s costs of engag-
ing in desirable or undesirable actions” (Loughry and Tosi 2008: 877; Barron and
Gjerde 1997; Varian 1990). In a similar vein, in their AMR article about the taxonomy
of team processes, Marks et al. (2001: 367) integrate team monitoring and backup
behavior with each other. Three means of backup behaviors can be identified:
(1) to provide a teammate (verbal) feedback and coaching to improve performance
(2) to assist the teammate behaviorally in carrying out actions and performing a
task
(3) to detect and complete a task on behalf of an overloaded team member (Marks
et al. 2001: 367; Salas et al. 2005: 579).
When mutual monitoring detects that a fellow team member’s workload exceeds
the other’s capacity, additional team members can engage in backup behaviors by
transferring the workload to underutilized team members. If the tasks of the over-
loaded team member are not taken over, the overall team performance will likely
deteriorate (Salas et al. 2005: 579). Thus in case of need, monitoring can include to
seek help from other team members and to provide feedback and task-related support.
As a prerequisite, for team monitoring to occur effectively, team members have to be
aware of the role of others team members in order to determine what kind of support
may be needed at a particular time (Marks et al. 2001: 367). Team monitoring is first
and foremost a cognitive activity in which team members observe the activities of
their fellow team members and look out for errors or discrepancies in performance.
When a team member detects the necessity to help, a respective backup behavior is
provided, for example in the form of verbal and behavioral feedback to get the team’s
performance back on track (Marks et al. 2001: 367).
Effects of peer monitoring and peer control. The effects of peer monitoring
are twofold: (1) positive effects and (2) negative effects. (1) Peer monitoring as a
specific type of informal control can promote cooperative behavior (see Sect. 3.4.1),
for example through the sanctioning of peers (e.g. Fehr and Gächter 2000, 2002;
Masclet et al. 2003; Fehr and Fischbacher 2004; Noussair and Tucker 2005; Carpenter
et al. 2009; Joffily et al. 2014) or through compensation of other’s poor performance
(e.g. LePine and Van Dyne 2001; Loughry and Tosi 2008). (2) Despite the numerous
potential benefits of peer monitoring, the harmful aspects should not be neglected.
Some scholars view peer control as particularly dangerous, because it could interfere
with relationships among co-workers that provide solidarity and support for workers,
exacerbate the power imbalance between management and workers and increase total
control to an excessive level (Barker and Cheney 1994). When putting agency theory
aside, a risk of peer control may be, that peers sometimes purposefully influence
their peers to work against the organization’s interests (Loughry 2010: 340), while
even examples of such undesired behavior among peers of corporate boards exists
(Westphal and Khanna 2003). Even when peers try to influence one another to act in
the organization’s interests, they may do so in ways that are actually detrimental to
the organization or its members. For example, peer control may absorb time which
could be used for the workers’ assigned duties, upset supervisors or contribute to
performance problems in case the peer performing the control misunderstands what
behavior is most appropriate in a given situation (Welbourne and Ferrante 2008).
Especially when peers decide to deploy indirect methods of peer control (i.e.
gossiping or avoiding peers), some of which can be categorized as inappropriate
techniques, might have negative outcomes even though the peers exerting the control
want their co-workers to perform better (LePine and Van Dyne 2001; Loughry and
Tosi 2008). When gossiping about co-workers or avoiding to work and socialize with
poorly performing co-workers, the problematic aspect of these monitoring behaviors
is that they do not unmistakably relate the co-worker’s actions with its consequences.
Because the poorly performing employees that are being avoided to work with by
their peers or peers gossip about them when they are not around, the poor performers
usually do not notice that they have been targets of indirect peer monitoring. And
those individuals, who take notice of such peer behaviors, may ascribe it to features
of the peer doing the monitoring, such as the peer’s mood or personality, instead of
their own poor performance. Therewith, indirect peer monitoring can be associated
with acts of rejection and distancing rather than assuming responsibility for the
interactions with peers in general and the poorly performing peer in particular. Thus,
it is likely that those individuals, which show such indirect peer monitoring behaviors,
may be more anxious about protecting their own interests than taking care of the
interests of their peers, their team and their organization (Lougrhy and Tosi 2008:
885). Therefore, the downsides likely exceed the benefits of those forms of indirect
peer control. Furthermore, high levels of peer pressure and inappropriate forms of
peer control could harm individual or collective performance, create an unpleasant
work environment and subject peers to stress (Kandel and Lazear 1992; Barron and
Gjerde 1997; Lougrhy and Tosi 2008).
Summarizing the above elaborations, peer monitoring designed by workers can
generally comprise the following spectrum of behaviors (Loughry and Tosi 2008:
883; Loughry 2010: 328):
• Direct informal peer monitoring
– Observational monitoring and noticing peers’ behavior and results
– Advisory monitoring—praising, correcting, training or mentoring peers
– Vertical reporting
– Discussing and sharing job-related information about co-workers’ behavior,
results or their job-related data
• Indirect informal peer monitoring
– Rejecting and avoiding peers

– Gossiping about disliked peers.
However, all these insights from previous research are based upon face-to-face-
relationships, wherefore it is not clear if and how they impact the cooperation in
virtual teams.
3.4.3 Peer Monitoring in Virtual Teams
Research focusing on peer monitoring in virtual teams is scarce. However, first orga-
nizational control literature provide some theoretical thoughts, and second, computer
science literature gives some empirical hints.
First, organizational control literature give some first impressions about the man-
ifestation of monitoring in a virtual world. Misty L. Loughry (2010: 351) stresses
the importance to consider the characteristics of the organizational context when
conducting research about peer control. She exemplifies the virtual nature of work
and hypothesizes that this will likely affect the way peer control is done. Hence, she
proposes to examine how peer control functions among workers who are not collo-
cated. Likely, those workers may exert and experience peer control differently than
workers who spend large amount of time face-to-face. In line with that, the reach of
worker-designed informal peer control (e.g. Kirsch et al. 2010) is expanding as elec-
tronic forms of communication such as email, blogs and websites are giving people
more opportunity to exert informal peer control and with minimal time and effort to
influence many peers. For example, many workers can email all of their co-workers
with one distribution list.
In contrast to that, other researchers assume, that virtuality actually reduces the
ability to monitor, keep track and verify each other’s progress on team tasks. In
consequence, the virtual team members would need to accept the inherent uncertainty
about an others’ work status (e.g. Muethel et al. 2012). Researcher state for example
that the “reliance on computer-mediated communication reduces opportunities for
monitoring“(Gibson and Gibbs 2006) and that directly observing others is often
impossible (Carson et al. 2003). However, empirical evidence is often missing about
whether and how peer monitoring manifests virtually.
Second, computer science literature provides some empirical evidence for the pos-
sibility of monitoring in virtual relationships. Peer monitoring is a fundamental build-
ing block of virtual platforms like Wikipedia (anyone can monitor and edit anyone
else’s articles), eBay (buyers and sellers monitor and rate each other’s reliability) or
any other open source phenomena. Thus, monitoring in virtual environments is often
addressed by computer science scholars, focusing on (informal) control mechanisms

of software systems and not concentrate on the human interactions and relationships.
Additionally, some studies show that for example open source software and other
online communities rely extensively on informal control mechanisms in distributed
virtual development teams, and thus give hints on the possibility of peer monitoring
in a virtual work environment (e.g. Stewart and Gosain 2006). Moreover, Gallivan
(2001) argues on basis of secondary analysis of published case studies about virtual
open source software teams, that various control mechanisms can ensure an effective
performance of autonomous agents working in these virtual organizations. Addi-
tionally, based upon the same case studies, Gallivan and Depledge (2003) propose,
that control is complemented by trust and that they form a dialectic. Therefore they
advice, that researcher should consider both constructs when studying partnerships
and interorganizational relations.
Furthermore, other researchers argue that in the current digitalized (work and
student) environment the “traditional face-to-face peer monitoring model has (…)
limited success” (Smailes and Gannon-Leary 2011: 138), as the frequent access to
the Internet was perceived as more convenient by the study participants. However,
they focused their research more on mentoring than on monitoring. In the same vein
some other researcher focus on online mentoring as a new direction, which is often
described as some kind of need-based monitoring (e.g. Ensher et al. 2003), i.e. an
understanding of the communal nature of the relationship focusing on assisting an
helping the other (McAllister 1995: 31).
In sum, there are some theoretical and empirical hints about peer monitoring in
virtual teamwork. However, a systematic study focusing on the role of peer moni-
toring to enable cooperation in virtual teams and especially how and through which
media peer monitoring is expressed is missing, although working in virtual teams
“is fast becoming the rule rather than the exception” (Zander et al. 2012: 592).
References
Abernethy, A. M., & Lett, W. L., III. (2005). You are fired! A method to control and sanction free
riding in group assignments. Marketing Education Review, 15(1), 47–54.
Adler, T. R. (2007). Swift trust and distrust in strategic partnering relationships: Key considerations
of team-based designs. Journal of Business Strategies, 24(2), 105–121.
Afflerbach, T., Weibel, A., & Gläsener, K. (2016). Beyond swift trust: The social practices of trust
in virtual teams. In Paper Presented at the 32nd EGOS Colloquium, Naples.
Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational identity and identification:
Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 13–17.
Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization.
The American Economic Review, 62(5), 777–795.
Allen, T. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Amin, A., & Cohendet, P. (2004). Architectures of knowledge: Firms, capabilities, and communities.
Oxford University Press on Demand.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An
examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374.
Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams.
Administrative science quarterly, 408–437.
Barker, J. R., & Cheney, G. (1994). The concept and the practices of discipline in contemporary
organizational life. Communications Monographs, 61(1), 19–43.
Barron, J. M., & Gjerde, K. P. (1997). Peer pressure in an agency relationship. Journal of Labor
Economics, 15(2), 234–254.
Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage.
Strategic Management Journal, 15(S1), 175–190.
Bartel, C. A. (2001). Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: Effects of community out-
reach on members’ organizational identity and identification. Administrative Science Quarterly,
46(3), 379–413.
Bigley, G. A., & Pearce, J. L. (1998). Straining for shared meaning in organization science: Problems
of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 405–421.
Bijlsma-Frankema, K., & Costa, A. C. (2005). Understanding the trust-control nexus. International
Sociology, 20(3), 259–282.
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with Social Theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10.
Blumer, H. (2004). Der methodologische Standort des symbolischen Interaktionismus. In J.
Strübing & B. Schnettler (Ed.), Methodologische interpretative Sozialforschung. Klassische
Grundlagentexte (pp. 319–387). Konstanz: UVK (UTB).
Brickson, S. (2000). The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational outcomes
in demographically diverse settings. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 82–101.
Brown, R., & Wade, G. (1987). Superordinate goals and intergroup behavior: The effect of role
ambiguity and status on intergroup attitudes and task performance. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 17(2), 131–142.
Brown, H. G., Poole, M. S., & Rodgers, T. L. (2004). Interpersonal traits, complementarity, and
trust in virtual collaboration. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(4), 115–138.
Brownlie, J., & Howson, A. (2005). ‘Leaps of faith’and MMR: an empirical study of trust. Sociology,
39(2), 221–239.
Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a
conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17(3), 643–663.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group character-
istics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology,
46(4), 823–847.
Cardinal, L. B., Sitkin, S. B., & Long, C. P. (2004). Balancing and rebalancing in the creation and
evolution of organizational control. Organization Science, 15(4), 411–431.
Carlin, R. E., & Love, G. J. (2013). The politics of interpersonal trust and reciprocity: An
experimental approach. Political Behavior, 35(1), 43-63.
Carpenter, J., Bowles, S., Gintis, H., & Hwang, S. H. (2009). Strong reciprocity and team production:
Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 71(2), 221–232.
Carson, S. J., Madhok, A., Varman, R., & John, G. (2003). Information processing moderators of the
effectiveness of trust-based governance in interfirm R&D collaboration. Organization Science,
14(1), 45–56.
Carte, T., & Chidambaram, L. (2004). A capabilities-based theory of technology deployment in
diverse teams: Leapfrogging the pitfalls of diversity and leveraging its potential with collaborative
technology.
Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual
teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15(4), 323–343.
References 77
Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(3),
81–90.
Castaldo, S. (2007). Trust in market relationships. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Chaiken, S. L. (1986). Physical appearance and social influence. In C. P. Herman, M. P. Zanna, & E.
T. Higgins (Eds.), Physical Appearance, Stigma, and Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium.
Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic
dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42(3),
273–287.
Child, J. (2001). Trust—the fundamental bond in global collaboration. Organizational Dynamics,
29(4), 274–288.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and
personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of occupational psychology, 53(1), 39–52.
Corley, K. G., Harquail, C. V., Pratt, M. G., Glynn, M. A., Fiol, C. M., & Hatch, M. J. (2006). Guiding
organizational identity through aged adolescence. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(2), 85–99.
Cox, J. C. (2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and economic behavior, 46(2),
260–281.
Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning? Research in organizational behavior, 26, 231–263.
Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple social categorization. Advances in experimental
social psychology, 39, 163-254.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2001). Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated
framework. Organization studies, 22(2), 251–283.
De Cremer, D., Snyder, M., & Dewitte, S. (2001). ‘The less I trust, the less I contribute (or not)?’The
effects of trust, accountability and self-monitoring in social dilemmas. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 31(1), 93–107.
De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and Team Performance: A Meta- Analysis
of Main Effects, Moderators, and Covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online
publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000110.
De Jong, B. A., & Elfring, T. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The
mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3),
535–549.
Dewitte, S., & Cremer, D. D. (2001). Self-control and cooperation: Different concepts, similar
decisions? A question of the right perspective. The Journal of Psychology, 135(2), 133–153.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Hodson, G., Riek, B. M., Johnson, K. M., & Houlette, M.
(2006). Recategorization and crossed categorization: The implications of group salience and
representations for reducing bias.
Dow, D. (2000). A note on psychological distance and export market selection. Journal of
International Marketing, 8(1), 51–64.
Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder:
The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of
physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3), 507–533.
Ensher, E. A., Heun, C., & Blanchard, A. (2003). Online mentoring and computer-mediated
communication: New directions in research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(2), 264–288.
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983a). Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law
and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983b). Agency problems and residual claims. The Journal of Law
and Economics, 26(2), 327–349.
Festinger, L. (1951). Architecture and group membership. Journal of Social Issues, 7(1–2), 152–163.
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and human
behavior, 25(2), 63–87.
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. The journal
of economic perspectives, 14(3), 159–181.
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415(6868), 137–140.
Ferrin, D. L., Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2007). Can I trust you to trust me? A theory of trust, mon-
itoring, and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Group and Organization
Management, 32(4), 465–499.
Ferrin, D. L., Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2008). It takes two to tango: An interdependence analysis
of the spiraling of perceived trustworthiness and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup
relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(2), 161–178.
Fleeson, W., & Leicht, C. (2006). On delineating and integrating the study of variability and stability
in personality psychology: Interpersonal trust as illustration. Journal of Research in Personality,
40(1), 5–20.
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and
human resource management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources
management (Vol. 16, pp. 1–51). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple
organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167–1230.
Gabarro, J. J. (1978). The development of trust, influence, and expectations (pp. 290–303).
Interpersonal behavior: Communication and understanding in relationships.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E. A. (2000).
Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and
mutual differentiation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 98.
Gaertner, L., & Insko, C. A. (2000). Intergroup discrimination in the minimal group paradigm:
Categorization, reciprocation, or fear? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 77.
Gambetta, D. (1988). Can we trust trust? Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 213–
237). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Gallivan, M. J. (2001). Striking a balance between trust and control in a virtual organization:
a content analysis of open source software case studies. Information Systems Journal, 11(4),
277–304.
Gallivan, M. J., & Depledge, G. (2003). Trust, control and the role of interorganizational systems
in electronic partnerships. Information Systems Journal, 13(2), 159–190.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Gibson, C. B., Huang, L., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2014). Where global and virtual meet:
The value of examining the intersection of these elements in twenty-first-century teams. Annual
Review of Organizational Psychologyand Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 217–244.
Giddens, A. (1994). Risk, Trust and Reflexivity. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive
Modernization (pp. 184–197). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Golembiewski, R. T., & McConkie, M. (1975). The centrality of interpersonal trust in group
processes. Theories of group processes, 131, 185.
González, R., & Brown, R. (2003). Generalization of positive attitude as a function of subgroup and
superordinate group identifications in intergroup contact. European Journal of Social Psychology,
33(2), 195–214.
References 79
Goodman, R. A., & Goodman, L. P. (1976). Some management issues in temporary systems: A study
of professional development and manpower-the theater case. Administrative science quarterly,
494–501.
Han, G., & Harms, P. D. (2010). Team identification, trust and conflict: a mediation model.
International Journal of conflict management, 21(1), 20–43.
Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, 73(9), 40–48.
Hansen, M. T., & Løvås, B. (2004). How do multinational companies leverage technological com-
petencies? Moving from single to interdependent explanations. Strategic Management Journal,
25(8–9), 801–822.
Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. Russell Sage Foundation.
Henttonen, K., & Blomqvist, K. (2005). Managing distance in a global virtual team: the evolution of
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1),
575–604.
Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams:
The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational
contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140.
Holmstrom, B. (1982). Moral hazard in teams. The Bell Journal of Economics, 324–340.
Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical
ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379–403.
Huff, L., & Kelley, L. (2003). Levels of organizational trust in individualist versus collectivist
societies: A seven-nation study. Organization Science, 14(1), 81–90.
Iacono, C. S., & Weisband, S. (1997, January). Developing trust in virtual teams. In System Sciences,
1997, Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. 412–420).
IEEE.
Ishaya, T., & Macaulay, L. (1999). The role of trust in virtual teams. Electronic Journal of
Organizational Virtualness, 1(1), 140–157.
Islam, M. M. U. (1996). Peer monitoring in the credit market. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 26(4),
452–465.
Jagd, S., & Fuglsang, L. (2016). Studying Trust as Process within and between Organizations. In S.
Jagd & L. Fuglsang (Eds.), Trust, Organizations and Social Interaction: Studying Trust as Process
within and between Organizations (pp. 1–18). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Janssen, O., & Huang, X. (2008). Us and me: Team identification and individual differentia-
tion as complementary drivers of team members’ citizenship and creative behaviors. Journal
global virtual teams. Journal of management information systems, 14(4), 29–64.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Shaw, T. R., & Staples, D. S. (2004). Toward contextualized theories of trust: The
role of trust in global virtual teams. Information systems research, 15(3), 250–267.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field
study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44(4), 741–763.
Joffily, M., Masclet, D., Noussair, C. N., & Villeval, M. C. (2014). Emotions, sanctions, and
cooperation. Southern Economic Journal, 80(4), 1002–1027.
Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W. C. (1982). Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construc-
tion and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43(6), 1306.
Jones, R. A., & Brehm, J. W. (1967). Attitudinal effects of communicator attractiveness when one
chooses to listen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,6(1), 64-70.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for
cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 531–546.
Kandel, E., & Lazear, E. P. (1992). Peer pressure and partnerships. Journal of Political Economy,
100(4), 801–817.
Kiffin-Petersen, S. (2004). Trust: A neglected variable in team effectiveness research. Journal of
Management & Organization, 10(01), 38–53.
Kiffin-Petersen, S. A., & Cordery, J. L. (2003). Trust, individualism and job characteristics as
predictors of employee preference for teamwork. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 14(1), 93–116.
Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory. Organizational
behavior and human performance, 31(2), 145–172.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five challenges
to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(3),
67–79.
Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1986). Social group identity and the emergence of cooperation
in resource conservation dilemmas. Graduate School of Business: Stanford University.
Kruse, J. (2014). Qualitative Interviewforschung. Beltz Juventa: Ein integrativer Ansatz.
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional
dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325–340.
Lembke, S., & Wilson, M. G. (1998). Putting the” team” into teamwork: Alternative theoretical
contributions for contemporary management practice. Human Relations, 51(7), 927–944.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: An attributional model of
helping in the context of groups. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 67–84.
Lewicki, R. J. und B. B. Bunker (1995): Trust in Relationsships: A Model of Trust Development
and Decline. In: B. B. Bunker und J. Z. Rubin (Hrsg.): Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice. San
Francisco, Jossey Bass.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships.
Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, 114–139.
Lewicki, R. & Tomlinson, E. C. (2014) Trust, Trust Development, and Trust Repair in Coleman, P.
T., Deutsch, M., & Marcus, E. C. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of Conflict Resolution - Theory and
Practice, 104–136.
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985.
Bijlsma-Frankema (Eds.), Organizational control (pp. 324–361). Cambrdige University Press.
Loughry, M. L., & Tosi, H. L. (2008). Performance implications of peer monitoring. Organization
Science, 19(6), 876–890.
Luhmann, N. (1988). Familiarity, confidence, trust (pp. 94–107). Trust: Making and breaking
cooperative relations.
Luhmann, N. (1989). Vertrauen: ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität. Lucius &
Lucius.
Lyon, F., Möllering, G., & Saunders, M. (2012) (Eds.). Handbook of Research Methods on Trust.
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ma, C. T., Moore, J., & Turnbull, S. (1988). Stopping agents from “cheating”. Journal of Economic
Theory, 46(2), 355–372.
Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification,
and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48(2), 309–333.
References 81
Mannix, E. A., Griffith, T., & Neale, M. A. (2002). The phenomenology of conflict in distributed
work teams. Distributed work, 213–233.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy
of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.
Masclet, D., Noussair, C., Tucker, S., & Villeval, M. C. (2003). Monetary and nonmonetary pun-
ishment in the voluntary contributions mechanism. The American Economic Review, 93(1),
366–380.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for
management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.
McEvily, B., & Tortoriello, M. (2011). Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and
recommendations. Journal of Trust Research, 1(1), 23–63.
McIntyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and managing for team performance: Emerging
principles from complex environments. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and
decision making in organizations (pp. 9–45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new
organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473–490.
Messick, D. M., & Kramer, R. M. (2001). Trust as a form of shallow morality.
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. Trust in
organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, 166, 195.
Miller, G. (1992). Managerial dilemmas. The Political Economy of Hierarchy: Cambridge
University Press.
Möllering, G. (2001). The nature of trust: From Georg Simmel to a theory of expectation,
interpretation and suspension. Sociology, 35(2), 403–420.
Möllering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, routine, reflexivity. Emerald Group Publishing.
Möllering, G. (2013). Process views of trusting and crises. In Bachmann, R., & Zaheer, A. (Eds.).
(2013). Handbook of advances in trust research. Edward Elgar Publishing. 285–305.
Moore, D. A., Kurtzberg, T. R., Thompson, L. L., & Morris, M. W. (1999). Long and short
routes to success in electronically mediated negotiations: Group affiliations and good vibrations.
Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. J. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed
teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(3), 212–238.
Mulder, L. B., Van Dijk, E., De Cremer, D., & Wilke, H. A. (2006). Undermining trust and coop-
eration: The paradox of sanctioning systems in social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 42(2), 147–162.
245.
Nooteboom, B. (2002). Trust: Forms, foundations, functions, failures and figures. Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Nooteboom, B., Berger, H., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (1997). Effects of trust and governance on
relational risk. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 308–338.
Nooteboom, B., & Six, F. (Eds.). (2003). The trust process in organizations: Empirical studies of
the determinants and the process of trust development. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Noussair, C., & Tucker, S. (2005). Combining monetary and social sanctions to promote cooperation.
Economic Inquiry, 43(3), 649–660.
Nunamaker, J. F., Reinig, B. A., & Briggs, R. O. (2009). Principles for effective virtual teamwork.
Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 113-117.
Ocker, R., Zhang, Y., Hiltz, S. R., & Ronson, M. B. (2009). Determinants of partially distributed
team performance: A path analysis of socio-emotional and behavioral factors. In AMCIS 2009
Proceedings, 707.
O’Hara-Devereaux, M., & Johansen, R. (1994). Globalwork - Bridging distance, culture and time.
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Osterloh, M., & Weibel, A. (2006). Investition Vertrauen - Prozesse der Vertrauensentwicklung in
Organisationen. Gabler.
Osterloh, M., & Weibel, A. (2009). The governance of explorative knowledge production.
Knowledge governance-processes and perspectives, 138-165.
Parkhe, A. (1993). Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic and transaction cost examination
of interfirm cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 794–829.
Pennings, J. M., & Woiceshyn, J. (1987). A typology of organizational control and its metaphors.
Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 5, 75–104.
MIS quarterly, 365–395.
Piccoli, G., Powell, A., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: team control structure, work processes,
and team effectiveness. Information Technology & People, 17(4), 359–379.
Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for organization theory: Problems and prospects. Oxford
University Press.
Porter, T. W., & Lilly, B. S. 1996. The effects of conflict, trust and task commitment on project team
performance. International Journal of Conflict Management,7: 361–376.
Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions
for future research. ACM Sigmis Database, 35(1), 6–36.
Pratt, M. G. (2001). Social identity dynamics in modern organizations: An organizational psychol-
ogy/organizational behavior perspective. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.). Social identity
processes in organizational contexts, Psychology Press, 13–30.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95–112.
Rigdon, M. (2009). Trust and reciprocity in incentive contracting. Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization, 70(1), 93–105.
Robert, L. P., Denis, A. R., & Hung, Y. T. C. (2009). Individual swift trust and knowledge-based
trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems,
26(2), 241–279.
Rock, K., Pratt, M. G., & Northcraft, G. B. (2003). The effects of faultlines and communication
media on identification in virtual teams. Working paper, University of Illinois.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A
cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small group
research, 36(5), 555–599.
Sarker, S., Ahuja, M., Sarker, S., & Kirkeby, S. (2011). The role of communication and trust in
global virtual teams: A social network perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems,
28(1), 273–310.
Saunders, M. N., Skinner, D., & Lewicki, R. (2010). Emerging themes, implications for practice,
and directions for research. In Saunders, M. N., Skinner, D., & Lewicki, R. (Eds.). Organizational
Trust: a cultural perspective. Cambridge University Press, 407–423.
References 83
Scott, C. R. (2007). Communication and social identity theory: Existing and potential connections
in organizational identification research. Communication Studies, 58(2), 123–138.
Seppänen, R., Blomqvist, K., & Sundqvist, S. (2007). Measuring inter-organizational trust - a
critical review of the empirical research in 1990–2003. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(2),
249–265.
Sethi, R. (2000). Superordinate identity in cross-functional product development teams: Its
antecedents and effect on new product performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
28(3), 330–344.
Sewell, G. (1998). The discipline of teams: The control of team-based industrial work through
electronic and peer surveillance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 397–428.
Shapiro, D. L., Sheppard, B. H., & Cheraskin, L. (1992). Business on a handshake. Negotiation
journal, 8(4), 365–377.
Sheppard, B. H., & Sherman, D. M. (1998). The grammars of trust: A model and general
implications. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 422–437.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup cooperation
and competition: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
Shiue, Y. C., Chiu, C. M., & Chang, C. C. (2010). Exploring and mitigating social loafing in online
communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 768–777.
Simmel, G. (1950). The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Transl., ed. and intr. by K.H. Wolff. New York:
Free Press.
Skinner, D., Dietz, G., & Weibel, A. (2014). The dark side of trust: When trust becomes a ‘poisoned
chalice’. Organization, 21(2), 206–224.
Smailes, J., & Gannon-Leary, P. (2011). Peer mentoring in assisting retention—is a virtual form of
support a viable alternative? ALT Journal: Research in Learning Technology, 19(2), 129–142.
Smith, K. G., Carroll, S. J., & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Intra-and interorganizational cooperation:
Toward a research agenda. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 7–23.
Stewart, K. J., & Gosain, S. (2006). The impact of ideology on effectiveness in open source software
development teams. MIS Quarterly, 291–314.
Stiglitz, J. E. (1990). Peer monitoring and credit markets. The world bank economic review, 4(3),
351–366.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing- Are research
and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 2–24.
Torre, A., & Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and localization. Regional Studies, 39(1), 47–59.
Towry, K. L. (2003). Control in a teamwork environment—The impact of social ties on the
effectiveness of mutual monitoring contracts. The Accounting Review, 78(4), 1069–1095.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and
behavioral engagement. Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2001). Identity and cooperative behavior in groups. Group Processes
& Intergroup Relations, 4(3), 207–226.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity,
and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361.
Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary
teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3),
532–547.
Van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2002). Social identification among school teachers: Dimensions, foci,
and correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 129–149.
Van Vugt, M., & Hart, C. M. (2004). Social identity as social glue: the origins of group loyalty.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 585.
Varian, H. R. (1990). Monitoring agents with other agents. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical
Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 153–174.
Wagner, J. A., III. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups.
Weibel, A. (2007). Formal control and trustworthiness: Shall the twain never meet? Group and
Organization Management, 32(4), 500–517.
Welbourne, T. M., Balkin, D. B., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1995). Gainsharing and mutual monitor-
ing: A combined agency-organizational justice interpretation. Academy of Management Journal,
38(3), 881–899.
Welbourne, T. M., & Ferrante, C. J. (2008). To monitor or not to monitor: A study of individual
outcomes from monitoring one’s peers under gainsharing and merit pay. Group & Organization
Management.
Westphal, J. D., & Khanna, P. (2003). Keeping directors in line: Social distancing as a control
mechanism in the corporate elite. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(3), 361–398.
6, 31.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (2001). Organizational identification among virtual
workers: The role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based social support. Journal of
Management, 27(2), 213–229.
Williams, M. (2007). Building genuine trust through interpersonal emotion management: A threat
regulation model of trust and collaboration across boundaries. Academy of Management Review,
32(2), 595–621.
Wrightsman, L. S. (1994). Adult personality development: Volume 1: Theories and concepts (Vol.
1). Sage Publications.
Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative science quarterly, 229–
239.
47(4), 592–603.
Chapter 4
Method
The theory-based sensitizing concepts about the contextual challenges putting the
cooperation within hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations at risk as
well as the solutions to foster cooperation provide a broad understanding about the
complexity of teamwork within such settings. Yet, so far we still only have a vague
idea how the individuals in such team actually experience the contextual challenges
of distance, technology and temporality in their day-to-day work and how they use
identification, trust and peer monitoring to overcome the cooperation problem and
in what way technology helps or hampers the use of those solutions. As such sensi-
tizing concepts should be deployed only with the aim to be bolstered with specific
content through empirical research (Kruse 2014: 112), the qualitative, empirical part
of the study presented in this book explores how members of hybrid virtual teams
in Shared Services Organizations can overcome the cooperation problem to enable
their teamwork to flourish. Thus, in the present chapter 1 (1) introduce the overall
design of the empirical research design, thereby outlining how the sensitizing con-
cepts informed the formulation of the research questions, (2) present the qualitative
field research inspired by organizational ethnography in detail, thereby outlining
which ethnographic elements the present study contains; (3) clarify the data collec-
tion through expert interviews and (4) explain the process of transcription and data
analysis.
4.1 Overall Research Design
The overall research design is characterized by an explorative approach to investigate

how identification, trust and peer monitoring may help to overcome the contextual
challenges of distance, technology and temporality in hybrid virtual teams in Shared
Services Organizations. Therefore, I will (1) elaborate how the sensitizing concepts
related to the contextual challenges and the solutions to foster cooperation induce
the research questions; then (2) explain the qualitative methodological approach of

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34300-2_4
86 4 Method
the study presented in this book; before (3) I will outline how the research questions
and the qualitative approach both determine the overall research design of this study.
From sensitizing concepts to research questions. Concepts play an essential role
in every empirical research and therewith also in qualitative research. Blumer (2004:
349) expounds, that basically every cognitive process is driven by concepts such as
the sensitizing concepts deployed in the study presented in this book. Such concepts
are critical elements for the researcher’s understanding of the empirical world. Some
scholars argue, that sensitizing concepts shall only be deployed with the aim to
be bolstered with specific content through empirical research (Kruse 2014: 112).
Thereby, a theoretical sensibility relates to the personal capabilities of the individual
researcher. Hence, it is possible to enter a research setting with differing amounts of
sensitivity. The degree of sensitivity depends on the precedent literature study and
the experiences, which the researcher has already made either in the research field of
interest or regarding a particular phenomenon, which is relevant for the investigated
context (Kruse 2014: 110).
In the study present case, the sensitizing concepts related to the contextual chal-
lenges and the solutions to foster cooperation are based upon my own work experience
in hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations combined with my extensive
literature study about potential contextual challenges as well as solutions within this
specific team setting. In addition, first encounters with the informants in the research
field helped in selecting concepts and topics to further delve into, first theoretically
and later also empirically. It also became evident, that interpretive research, which
is typically used for “relatively under-developed theoretical constructs” (Irani et al.
2008: 157), is most applicable here. This is, first, because the contextual challenges
of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations related to distance, tech-
nology and temporality have not been captured in detail from the perspective of the
individuals experiencing it. Second, we only have a vague idea how the theoretically
developed solutions to cooperation actually manifest and find expression in a hybrid
virtual team context and whether the available technology does support or hamper
the acting out of practices to foster cooperation with the fellow virtual team mem-
bers. Third, only limited theory about teamwork in Shared Services Organizations
is available (e.g. Knol et al. 2014), because the respective literature is dominated by
a material-perspective and commonly neglects many of the social elements within
this organizational context.
Hence, I derived the following qualitative research questions, which will guide
the empirical study presented in this book:
To answer those research three questions, qualitative empirical research is best
suited, because it allows to captures how to overcome the cooperation problem in
4.1 Overall Research Design 87
hybrid virtual teams from the perspective of the individuals working within such
team settings in a context-sensitive way.
Qualitative approach to research. The empirical research knows different ways
to generate insights, comprising quantitative and qualitative methods. The present
study is following a qualitative approach in order to achieve coherence between the
before mentioned research questions and the applied method. Qualitative research
is great for exploring the mindset of individuals within a group – insights that can
enrich, support or even question existing ways of knowing. Like other inductive
qualitative approaches it is good for understanding ‘why’ individuals do things (e.g.
their motivations) and ‘how’ they do them (e.g. the process, Pratt and Kim 2012: 8).
Qualitative research examines diverse phenomena in the environments in which
they naturally occur (Denzin and Lincoln 1994: 2) and it qualifies to answer ques-
tions about how social experiences are created (Denzin and Lincoln 2000: 3). In that
sense, it can be conceived as inductive and interpretive with an emergent character
(Van Maanen 1998). Qualitative research makes use of the societal members’ mean-
ings to explain how they experience their realities of everyday life. Thus, qualitative
research embraces the idea of multiple realities (Creswell 2007: 16). This holds par-
ticularly true, as qualitative research usually starts from and returns to words, talk
and texts of the participants in the study. With its emphasis on situational and con-
textual details unfolding over time, qualitative research also allows the description
of processes. Furthermore, qualitative researchers frequently strive to explain their
research observations by providing well-justified conceptual insights that reveal how
broad concepts and theories operate in particular cases in the field (Gephart 2004:
455). As Robert Gephart (2004) in his AMJ-issue of “From the Editors” further
stresses, an “important value of qualitative research is the description and under-
standing of the actual human interactions, meanings and processes that constitute
real-life organizational settings. The depiction and understanding of the meanings
of organization members is important in itself” (Gephart 2004: 455). Qualitative
research can provide thick and very exhaustive descriptions of the (inter-) actions
in real-life contexts, e.g. an organization, that capture the meanings that participants
attribute to these actions and contexts. Thus, qualitative research can shed light on the
different social processes and interactions and its underlying management in orga-
nizations or its underlying phenomena and relationships among diverse variables
(Gephart 2004: 455). It is quite common to conduct qualitative research in the field,
because this way the insights may be more context sensitive (Ritchie and Lewis 2003:
56). Hence a qualitative approach to research is exceptionally well suited in the study
presented in this book, because it enables to embellish the rather broad sensitizing
concepts related to the contextual challenges and the solutions to foster cooperation
with context-specific details for the particular case of hybrid virtual teams in Shared
Services Organizations. Furthermore, it fits because the aim of the study is to collect
detailed descriptions about how to overcome the cooperation problem in hybrid vir-
tual teams from the perspectives of the individuals experiencing and acting upon it
in their day-to-day lives.
Research design. Drawing on a qualitative approach and being inspired by the
work of the two US-American Professors Pamela J. Hinds and Catherine Durnell
88 4 Method
Cramton (for a reflection about their methodological insights see Hinds and Cram-
ton 2012), who have a track-record of studying geographically and distributed work
teams for over a decade, I have chosen a research design in the sense of “qualitative
field research in real organizations” (Hinds and Cramton 2012: 105). The two schol-
ars’ approach is in many ways traditional qualitative research, which they loosely
label as ethnographic. Hence the study presented in this book continues their tradition
of how to best conduct field research about virtual teams.
Numerous scholars recommend the combination of more than one qualitative
method “since each brings a particular kind of insight to a study” (Ritchie and Lewis
2003: 37). Combining data collection methods the researcher can assess the strengths
and limitations of different methods and “limitations in one method can be compen-
sated for by the strengths of a complementary one” (Marshall and Rossman 2006:
131). This recommendation is associated with the idea of triangulation as a means for
qualitative researchers to comprehensively capture the social processes. Previously,
triangulation was primarily understood to be beneficial for checking the integrity of
the inferences drawn from the data. As such, triangulation has been widely adopted
and qualitative researchers deploy it to investigate the ‘convergence’ of both the data
and the conclusions derived from them (Denzin and Lincoln 1994). It is also often
cited as one of the central ways of ‘validating’ qualitative research evidence. Yet,
it has been argued that the real value of triangulation lies in broadening the under-
standing and the use of multiple perspectives gives the analysis more breadth and
depth (Ritchie and Lewis 2003: 44).
In line with the recommendation for triangulation, the study presented in this
book combines qualitative interviews with observational data to backup the research
insights with multiple data sources and to strengthen the validity (Ritchie and Lewis
2003: 37 f.; Marshall and Rossman 2006: 97; Ybema et al. 2009: 6; Yin 2014: 121).
Thereby, it is especially useful to combine naturally occurring data (observation and
documents as ‘perception’) with generated data (interviews and group discussions as
‘action’) in order to be able to describe various aspects of organizational life (Ybema
et al. 2009: 6). Combining qualitative interviews (individual and groups) with obser-
vational data and documents, the research design of the study presented in this book
has two main layers: the first layer comprises a two-company comparative qualitative
field study, while the second layer comprises expert interviews. In more detail, the
first layer comprises the field research I conducted, which is inspired by organiza-
tional ethnography. I was conducting extensive field research in a global company
(‘GlobalMobility’), deploying data collection methods ranging from interviews to
observation to document analysis, in order to acquire process knowledge. Building
on this, I conducted similar field research in a second company (‘GlobalTech’) with
the objective of acquiring even more process knowledge through contrasting the two
companies. The second layer comprises the data collection meant to provide context
knowledge through the conduction of expert interviews. In general, this second layer
of data collection was running in parallel to the above mentioned field research. By
way of derogating from this parallelism, the first couple of expert interviews were
prior to kicking off the extensive field research at GlobalMobility and GlobalTech,
4.1 Overall Research Design 89
GlobalMobility (Baseline) GlobalTech (Variation)

Inspired by Organizational Inspired by Organiza-
Data Ethnography: tional Ethnography:
Collection: • Interviews (Individ- • Interviews
Process uals & Groups) (Individuals)
Knowledge • Observation • Observation
• Documents • Documents
Data
Collection:
Context Expert Interviews
Knowledge
Data Qualitative Content

Analysis Analysis
Time
Fig. 4.1 Overview of qualitative research design. Source Own illustration
as a more explorative familiarization with hybrid virtual teams and Shared Services
Organizations in general.
The period of data collection for both layers was between Spring 2014 and Decem-
ber 2016. I started with the analysis of the data as soon as I collected the data, while
in parallel I continued to collect further data. This parallel approach of analysis and
collection allowed me to pin down discrepancies between my findings and existing
theories early on. The qualitative data has been analyzed applying the method of
qualitative content analysis (Schreier 2012).
The following figure (see Fig. 4.1) illustrates the aforementioned elements of the
qualitative research design:
In the following sections of this chapter 1 will provide information about the
procedure of data collection and data analysis in more detail.
4.2 Field Research Inspiried by Organisational

Ethnography
In order to approximate to a better understanding about how identification, trust and

peer monitoring may help to overcome the contextual challenges of distance, tech-
nology and temporality in hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations, I
consider an explorative approach inspired by organizational ethnography most appro-
priate to compile a rich description of the phenomenon in a context-sensitive manner
and from the perspective of the individuals within this context. This research is not
a pure ethnography, but inspired by it, as I do not use observations as a main method
90 4 Method
of data collection, but rather interviews, which are supplemented by observational

data and documents. Therefore, I complement the research approach with reflections
about doing in-depth qualitative research in general.
4.2.1 Introducing Organisational Ethnography
The qualitative field study presented in this book is inspired by organizational ethnog-
raphy. Similar to comparable organizational research studies, it is not ‘pure’ ethnog-
raphy but contains some ethnographic elements. “Organizational ethnography is
the ethnographic study, and its dissemination, of organizations and their organizing
processes” (Ybema et al. 2009: 4). Building on earlier studies in the field of anthro-
pology (Warner (1947). The Social System of the Modern Factory. The Strike: A
Social Analysis. 1947 “Hawthorne study”; Geertz 1973 “Balinese cockfight”) and
sociology (Whyte 1943 “Street corner society”), organizational research got to know
ethnography in the 1980s through a special issue about ethnography in organizations
in the journal Administrative Science Quarterly, which was edited by Van Maanen
(1979).
Ethnographies have specific ways of gathering data, such as participant observa-
tion and ethnographic interviews. Some studies are relatively ‘pure’ ethnographies,
which typically involve long periods (e.g. over 6 month) of being ‘in the field’
(Fetterman 1998). Yet, in the field of organizational research, there are relatively
few ethnographies that are ‘pure’, but several ethnographies, which contain some
ethnographic elements (e.g. Hinds and Cramton 2012; Pratt and Kim 2012: 7).
Ethnographies can be used when one is interested in getting the perspective of the
cultural participants or ‘informants’. The term ‘informant’ instead of ‘respondent’ (as
in a survey study) or ‘subject’ (as in a laboratory study) is not deployed accidentally in
ethnography. It is meant to emphasize the relation of the researcher to the researched
– informants, as the name describes, inform you. They are considered as the experts
of their social world (Pratt and Kim 2012: 7).
The aim of organizational ethnography is to grasp complex organizational pro-
cesses through a complex set of qualitative methods. While doing so it is reasonable
to combine observational data with qualitative interviews and a documentary analy-
sis to describe the different aspects of the organizational processes through different
perspectives (van der Waal 2009: 23; Yanow and Geuijen 2009: 254; Ybema et al.
2009: 6). Organizational ethnography has the potential to problematize what is taken
for granted (van der Waal 2009: 23). As a methodological framework, organizational
ethnography is helpful in making explicit the often overlooked (Ybema et al. 2009:
7). It is also a matter of fact, that organizational ethnography as a framework high-
lights the context-sensitivity as a critical dimension (Ybema et al. 2009: 7), which is
especially important when studying trust (Kramer and Cook 2004; see Sect. 4.2.1).
Helpful for doing research inspired by organizational ethnography is also to build
on “the researcher’s prior experience and knowledge” (Schwartz-Shea and Yalow
4.2 Field Research Inspiried by Organisational Ethnography 91
2009: 65). Fittingly, the prime researcher has a track record of around 5 years work-
ing in different roles in Finance and Human Resources departments in a multinational
corporation. Hence, I am familiar with the Shared Services context. During the course
of the research this was perceived as beneficial, because the informants valued the
understanding of their ‘language’. It also offered the possibility to approach a team,
which I knew through my personal networks, because recruiting acquainted instead
of unfamiliar informants can facilitate a more honest and reflective assessment of
the team processes, for example related to trust. This can be particularly important
in trust research in general (Lyon et al. 2012) and likely applies for the other aspects
of interest as well, e.g. contextual challenges or identification and peer monitoring
in hybrid virtual teams. That I as a researcher was able to build on an already exist-
ing trustworthy relationship with the informants revealed to be very beneficial, for
instance to gain initial access to the field or the open and welcoming atmosphere
during the field research, which is especially important while doing organizational
ethnography (Neyland 2008: 100).
Concluding, the conduction of the present qualitative field study is inspired by
organizational ethnography, as it contains ethnographic elements such as trying to
capture the organizational phenomena through the eyes of the informants or deploy-
ing multiple qualitative methods to grasp a diverse set of perspectives. It also helps to
question what is taken for granted in the investigated hybrid virtual teams in Shared
Services Organizations, because cooperation in those settings does not just happen.
Importantly, being inspired by organizational ethnography also allowed me to be
empirically inductive and explorative within the broad boundaries of pre-defined
theoretical, i.e. sensitizing, concepts of the contextual challenges and solution to
foster cooperation in hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations.
4.2.2 Sampling: GlobalMobility and GlobalTech
For qualitative research in general, and for research inspired by organizational

ethnography in particular, the selection of the sample (or ‘exposure’ as some organi-
zational ethnographers label it)—companies, teams, informants but also events—is
of paramount importance (e.g. Creswell 2007: 125; Schwartz-Shea and Yalow 2009:
67). Based upon the research objectives and the associated research context of hybrid
virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations, the following elaborations will show
what and whom I have purposefully sampled to better our understanding of the
phenomenon of trusting in hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations.
Symbolic representation and diversity within sample. Qualitative research
aims at acquiring a better understanding of the nature and form of a phenomenon
by means of unpacking purport, developing explanations and generating concepts,
ideas or theories. This also means that the qualitative researcher selects individuals,
teams and companies, because they can purposefully inform an understanding of the
phenomenon in the study (Creswell 2007: 125). In order to accomplish this, different
92 4 Method
scholars such as Ritchie and Lewis (2003: 82–86) propose to consider the following
two requirements for the purposeful sample selection in qualitative studies:
• Symbolic representation: The chosen sample shall ‘symbolize’ and ‘represent’
features of relevance for the investigation. Therefore, researchers need to select
samples in such a way that the samples include the relevant events, processes and
persons that can be informative and illuminating for the understanding (i.e. hybrid
virtual teams working in a Shared Services context). This can also mean, that
specific samples are incorporated into the study, because they typify a circumstance
or hold a particular characteristic that is either expected or known to be particularly
relevant for the research interest (Ritchie and Lewis 2003).
• Diversity within sample: The chosen sample shall be as diverse as possible within
the boundaries of the symbolic representation. Diversity within the sample is
beneficial, because it increases the chances to identify the full range of features
that are associated with the phenomenon under investigation (Ritchie and Lewis
2003). Furthermore, the diversity within the sample allows figuring out how peo-
ple belonging to different contexts view a specific topic (e.g. Miles and Huberman
1994: 28; Creswell 2007: 127). In the study presented in this book, I ensured
diversity within the sample by selecting companies with (extreme) differences
in the company’s IT-adaptation. As outlined previously, technology is likely one
of the most obvious characteristic of virtual teamwork and hence the selected
sample differs between hybrid virtual teams using standard versus state-of-the-art
information and communication technology.
What those two requirements also illustrate is, that the overall goal of qualitative
research is not to generalize the findings, but rather to capture rich descriptions of
phenomenon by those, who have experienced it. Therefore, symbolic representation
as well as the diversity within the sample function as guiding principles not only for
the selection of the companies to be included in this study, but also for the sampled
teams and even the individual team members as informants nested within the two
companies, which I included in the study presented in this book.
Building comparison into qualitative research designs. In the striving for sym-
bolic representation and diversity, I deploy a comparison of two companies. A com-
parison can be a very effective element of qualitative research design and analysis,
because it helps to define the sample selection process, supports the theory build-
ing and it may improve the validity of the research findings (Bechhofer and Pater-
son 2000; Bryman 2001; Pole and Lampard 2002; Ritchie and Lewis 2003: 50).
In qualitative research, comparison implies to select two sample units, which vary
significantly in one core variable, so that the effect of that specific variable can be
analyzed. Evidently, a comparison in qualitative research differs from a comparison
deployed in quantitative research, because the value of qualitative research rests in
understanding rather than measuring differences. In this study, I compare two differ-
ent companies, whereby I try to hold all but one core variable constant, in order to
approximate to a better understanding of the phenomenon of cooperation in hybrid
virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations. The core variable, which is varied,
is the companies’ IT-adaptation, i.e. one company deploying standard information
and communication technology and the other company deploying state-of-the-art

information and communication technology. The IT-adaptation and the available
information and communication technology seem to be an important variable for
cooperating in hybrid virtual teams. Thus, the comparison shall allow to:
• identify whether the IT-adaptation leads to an absence or presence of certain
phenomena in the teams of the two companies
• explore whether and how certain manifestations of phenomena differ between the
two companies with different IT-adaptations
• explore how the reasons for, or explanations of, phenomena, and their different
impacts and consequences, vary between the teams of the two companies
• explore the interaction between phenomena in settings with different IT-adaptation
• explore more broadly which differences arise in the virtual team context with
different IT-adaptations (Ritchie and Lewis 2003: 50–51).
While those elaborations apply to qualitative research in general, a similar rec-
ommendation is found in qualitative case study research. In that research stream,
multiple-case designs may be preferred over single-case designs. Doing a ‘two-case’
case study, the analytic benefits will be substantial, especially when deliberately
selecting the cases because they offer contrasting situations (Yin 2014: 63–64).
The following table (see Table 4.1) provides an overview of the key dimensions
of the two companies, which I am contrasting in the study presented in this book. For
both companies, ensuring cooperation in hybrid virtual teams in general, and in the
context of the Shared Services Organization in particular, is critical for the success,
as the teams in both companies operate across the world and have to coordinate their
work in a highly competitive business environment:
Introducing GlobalMobility. As a result of this research design, the company,
which I label ‘GlobalMobility’, functions as the baseline study for hybrid virtual
teams in Shared Services Organizations. Thereby, GlobalMobility’s product portfolio
comprises high-tech machinery and services to enable mobility, while meeting strict
safety standards. GlobalMobility has mobility as its core theme, which states “Bridge
distances and bring people together. Across cities, countries and the globe.” Besides,
as depicted in detail in the above table (see Table 4.1), GlobalMobility is a truly
multinational company and a major player in its market sector.
As GlobalMobility is a more traditional company from the ‘old economy’, it quite
likely represents the current status of communication technology in many companies
worldwide. The employees at GlobalMobility mainly communicate via e-mail and
telephone.
Introducing GlobalTech. Based upon the qualitative findings from GlobalMo-
bility as the baseline study, subsequently I purposefully sampled a company from
the ‘new economy’, which I labeled ‘GlobalTech’, as a variation to the baseline. As
I expect firms and individual employees in the information technology sector to be
most open towards new communication tools, this research design will allow me to
gain insights into trends probably shaping the future of hybrid virtual team commu-
nication. Hence, with this approach I not only want to find out which direction the
Table 4.1 Overview of similarities and variations of GlobalMobility and GlobalTech
94
Type Dimension Dimension’s specification Reason for why it GlobalMobility GlobalTech

matters
Similarities Key company Number of global locations, Keeping the – Multinational company – Multinational company
characteristics number of employees, recent general parameters with over 70,000 with over 70,000
developments regarding of the two cases employees worldwide employees worldwide
organizational structure, similar will make and headquarter in and headquarter in the
amount of annual revenues comparisons in the Canada USA
specifics easier – 75 production and – More than 200 offices
engineering sites in 28 in over 150 countries
countries around the around the globe
globe – Downsizing in
– Downsizing in 2016/2017: 7%
2016/2017: 10% workforce reduction (up
workforce reduction to 5500 employees)
(approx. 7500 – Global Fortune 500 list
employees) with more than
– Global Fortune 1000 list $40 billion annual
with annual revenues of revenues (fiscal year of
more than $18 billion 2015)
(fiscal year of 2015)
(continued)
4 Method
Table 4.1 (continued)
matters
Market/Industry Position and characteristics of Being the – Worldwide leader in the – Worldwide leader in the
the market served, e.g. dominator versus mobility sector IT sector
business-to-business (B2B) being the underdog – Competition: strong – Competition: need to
versus business-to-customer in the market might lower-cost Chinese adapt to a rapidly
(B2C) effect the competition changing technological
organizational – B2B environment landscape
culture just as – Focus on B2B
much as what kind relationships, some
of customer is non-company
addressed customers (B2C)
Shared service and Support functions such as To ensure – Shared services finance – Shared services finance
support functions as Finance, Human Resources comparability of (accounting) in Eastern and shared services
organizational which are shared by multiple the organizational Europe human resources in
context divisions and departments of structure – Current ramp-up: Eastern Europe
the company multi-tower center with – additional high skill
human resources and tasks such as
4.2 Field Research Inspiried by Organisational Ethnography
purchasing support cyber-security and

functions engineering services
(continued)
95
Table 4.1 (continued)
96

matters
Virtual Local business partner based in To mitigate impact In scope: In scope:
Team German-speaking countries of cultural – 2 Business Partner – Multiple locations of
(Germany-Austria-Switzerland) hierarchy and locations in Germany Business Partner in
and Central Hub in Eastern language variations (Finance of German + Germany, Austria and
Europe between the two Austrian Legal Entities) Switzerland (human
cases – 1 Central Hub in resources + finance)
Eastern Europe – 1 Central Hub in
(Finance, HR for Eastern Europe
EMEA countries, i.e. (Finance, HR in
Europe, Middle East, EMEAR, i.e. Europe,
Africa) Middle East, Africa and
Russia)
Lifecycle of team Functional teams established to Team dynamics – Central Hub has been – Launched in 2012 with
last, i.e. long-term/ongoing and especially trust established in 2009 3 employees
teams are different in – 2016: staff of more than – 2016: staff of more than
long-term 600 employees 1000 employees
relationship – Longterm-outlook (including engineers as
compared to only well)
project-based – Longterm-outlook
teams
Variations State of the Question to be answered: is Providing the latest – Traditional – Modern technology
communication virtuality maybe less information and manufacturing company, equipped
technology challenging with latest communication company, equipped with state-of-the-art
technology? technology may with standard information and
have an impact on information and communication
the cooperation in communication technology (e.g. chats,
hybrid virtual technology (i.e. email, high definition
teams telephone) video-conferencing)
4 Method

virtual teams are developing in the future, I also assume that the available communi-
cation technology has a (significant) influence on the present dynamics in the hybrid
virtual teams of GlobalTech. Similar to GlobalMobility, GlobalTech is a major player
in its market sector (see Table 4.1). It produces hardware and software solutions to
foster worldwide collaboration. Besides being an award-winning employer in mul-
tiple countries for ‘Best Place to Work’, its theme is to “transforming how people
connect, communicate and collaborate: connect everything, everywhere”.
Not surprisingly, at GlobalTech, the hybrid virtual team members mainly com-
municate via state of the art communication technology such as video conferenc-
ing, shared files, instant messaging and even TelePresence, a High Definition Video
Conferencing system.
Sampling of teams and informants. Within the two companies of GlobalMobil-
ity and GlobalTech, for the selection of the informants I deployed a non-probability
‘purposeful’ sampling strategy (Ritchie and Lewis 2003: 78). Prescribing selection
criteria in qualitative research is strongly linked with the aforementioned aim of qual-
itative research to accomplish symbolic representation and diversity. Hence, these
two requirements determine the selection process for the ‘sampling units’ such as
locations, sites and teams, as they need to comply with the selection criteria in order
to be including in the sample. Because samples in qualitative research are usually
small in size, the selection has to be executed with optimum efficiency (Ritchie and
Lewis 2003: 82–83). In the present research, I prescribed the following criteria start-
ing on the team-level, prior to then sampling informants based on individual-level
criteria. The selection criteria on the team-level comprise the following aspects:
• Teams working the context of Shared Services Organizations
• Teams with a high degree of virtual teamwork due to the geographic dispersion
across multiple locations
• High level of interaction and interdependency between different team members
Specifically, at GlobalMobility I selected one hybrid virtual team in the Shared
Services Organization of the Finance department, responsible for the DACH coun-
tries (Germany (D), Austria (A), Switzerland (CH)), which is geographically dis-
persed between two company sites in Germany and one site in Eastern Europe. At
GlobalTech, I also included the two support function teams responsible for the DACH
region, namely the Finance and Human Resources teams. The selected teams are geo-
graphically dispersed between different company sites in Germany, Switzerland and
Eastern Europe.
In order to select people who can best help me understand the phenomenon and
to follow the approach of symbolic representation and diversity I focused on the
following selection criteria on the individual-level:
• Participants must have first-hand experience with the research topic of virtual
collaboration and be able to talk about it,
• Participants on the different work locations know each other and work closely
together, so they not only talk about each other during the interviews they also
report similar or even the same situations from their respective perspective,
98 4 Method
• Similar profile: highly skilled knowledge workers with permanent, full time
contracts and (usually) university qualification,
• Diverse in demographics: I included team members with different gender, age and
work tenure at both companies.
Based upon these considerations regarding the sampling of teams and their respec-
tive team members, the following informants at GlobalMobility and GlobalTech have
been included in the data collection (see Table 4.2). Participation is this study was
voluntary and anonymity and protection was assured by a data protection agreement.
In a nutshell, the comparison of the perspectives and statements from informants
belonging to two companies from two different business sectors—one more ‘tra-
ditional’ company in respect to communication technology, one more up-to-date,
but both major players in their business sector also in terms of size, global foot-
print or innovativeness – allows me to identify what virtual teamwork across indus-
tries might have in common or where it might vary. Such a comparison helps with
probing the robustness of the research findings (Miles and Huberman 1994). But
despite the advantages of this research design, it does not enable me as a researcher
to fully exclude the potential effects of the industry background or the country of
the head office on how the teamwork in the analyzed hybrid virtual teams unfolds.
But the informants’ detailed accounts of their hybrid virtual team interactions and
their related interpretations convincingly demonstrate, which are the most relevant
contextual variables for the informants working in hybrid virtual teams.
4.2.3 Data Collection: Interviews, Observation

and Document Analysis
As combining more than one qualitative method is beneficial for qualitative research,
as “each brings a particular kind of insight to a study” (Ritchie and Lewis 2003: 37),
I relied on different methods for gathering information from different sources: (indi-
vidual) interviews, focus groups, observation and documentary analysis. With that
combination I incorporated naturally occurring, such as observation and documents
as well as generated data, such as in interviews of individuals and focus groups
(Ritchie and Lewis 2003: 37; Marshall and Rossman 2006: 97; Ybema et al. 2009:
6). Specifically, the data collection, which is inspired by organizational ethnography
and comprises informants from two companies—GlobalMobility and GlobalTech—
and multiple locations, is composed of 25 semi-structured individual interviews,
three (focus) group interviews and 18 observation days, all methods bolstered by a
document analysis in parallel (see Table 4.3).
Individual interviews. Qualitative researchers rely quite extensively on individ-
ual interviews (Marshall and Rossman 2006: 101). They are “probably the most
widely used method in qualitative research” (Ritchie and Lewis 2003: 36). Despite
the diverse types of interviews, what all interviews have in common is their capa-
bility to focus on individuals. They allow conducting an in-depth investigation of
Table 4.2 Overview of sample and informants at GlobalMobility and GlobalTech

Company Location Informant (IF) Gender Age Tenure Team task
GlobalMobility Location 1 IF_1_GM1 F 52 23 Finance
(GM) (Germany) IF_2_GM1 M 49 17 Finance
IF_3_GM1 F 49 21 Finance
IF_4_GM1 M 38 4 Finance
Location 2 IF_7_GM2 F 59 42 Finance
(Germany) IF_8_GM2 F 45 29 Finance
Location 3 IF_10_GM3 M 31 5 Finance
(Romania) IF_11_GM3 F 29 6 Finance
IF_17_GM3_HR F 27 <1 Human
resources
IF_18_GM3a F 28 5 Finance
IF_19_GM3a M 34 5 Finance
IF_20_GM3a M 30 <1 Finance
IF_21_GM3a M 29 3 Finance
GlobalTech Location 1 IF_24_GT1 M 39 2 Human
(GT) (Switzerland) resources
Location 2 IF_25_GT2b F 42 15 Finance
(Switzerland)
Location 3 IF_26_GT3 M 49 3 Finance
(Germany)
Location 4 IF_27_GT4b F 46 6 Human
(Germany) resources
Location 5 IF_28_GT5 F 32 1 Human
(Poland) resources
IF_29_GT5 F 35 <1 Finance
IF_30_GT5 M 31 3 Finance
IF_31_GT5 F 38 3 Finance
a (focus) group interviews
b Interview via WebEx or TelePresence (video conferencing)
100 4 Method
Table 4.3 Overview of data collection at GlobalMobility and GlobalTech

Study Location Interviewsa Focus Observationb Document
groups (at (days) analysis
least three
informants)
GlobalMobility Location_1 6 1c 3 External
(GM) (Germany) documents
Location_2 3 – 1 such as
(Germany) websites: job
vacancies,
Location_3 8 2c 5 press
(Romania) releases,
GlobalTech Location_1 1 – 2 general news
(GT ) (Switzerland) coverage
Location_2 1 – – Internal
(Switzerland) documents
such as
Location_3 1 – 1 strategy
(Germany) brochures,
Location_4 1 – 1d presentations
(Germany)
Location_5 4 – 5
(Poland)
Total 25 3 18
a Interviews contain one interviewee, who is a multiteam member at Location_1 and _2 of
GlobalMobility (IF_2_GM1_Manager)
b Observation includes attendance of events tailored for a public audience (Managers, Consultants,
Students)
c Informants IF_1 to IF_5_GM1; IF_18 to IF_20_GM3 and IF_21 to IF_23_GM3
d Immersion and observation at another location of GlobalTech, while conducting a high-definition
video conference (TelePresence) with an informant from Location_4 (IF_27_GT4)
an individual’s personal perspective and provide a detailed understanding of the

personal context, within which the examined phenomena is embedded. Interviews
are also helpful to acquire an understanding for deeply rooted or delicate phenom-
ena and gather insights about complex systems, processes or experiences. Moreover,
interviews allow clarifying and obtaining a detailed understanding of the phenomena
from the interviewees’ standpoint (Ritchie and Lewis 2003: 36–37). Therewith, inter-
views provide a comprehensive coverage of the research subject. In the present study,
I conducted semi-structured interviews to get access to hybrid virtual team members’
subjective perceptions of virtual collaboration via computer-mediated communica-
tion technology. The interviews put me in the position “to learn about perceptions
and reactions known only to those to whom they occurred” (Weiss 1994: 10). In my
case, the interviewees are members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Orga-
nizations and by means of interviewing I was able to access the informants’ “inner
events” (Weiss 1994). Or in other words, I could hear what the informants’ believe,
think, decide and feel or how they evaluate their performance and the overall situation
as a hybrid virtual team. Thereby, semi-structured interviews allow to steer a middle
course: on the one hand they guarantee a certain degree of consistency in questions
so that the views of the different interviewees are comparable with each other and
on the other hand maintain a sufficient flexibility to discuss important issues as they
arise and which I maybe did not anticipate upfront (Marshall and Rossman 2006:
102).
In the first and rather short introductory part of the interviews I started with easy,
opening questions on a more surface level to gather background and contextual infor-
mation about the specifics of the team, which the informant belongs to. This first part
of the interview was also helpful for definitional questions and clarification, e.g. what
is meant with the term ‘hybrid virtual team’. During the main part of the interview,
I raised questions and discussed with the informants about how they experience the
contextual challenges of their teamwork and following this, I dug deeper in regards
how technology, distance and technology hampers their cooperative efforts within
the team. Similarly, I prompted the informants to elaborate how they try to cope with
those contextual challenges and then I also dug deeper in regards to whether and
how they try to overcome it through identification, trust and peer monitoring among
the hybrid virtual team members. Usually, the informants referred to the contex-
tual challenges, i.e. distance, technology and/or temporality, as well as the solutions
to foster cooperation, i.e. identification, trust and/or peer monitoring, themselves,
a fact which supports the appropriateness of the deployed sensitizing concepts of
the study presented in this book. If not already addressed by the informants during
their answers anyways, I concluded the main part of the interview with questions
about specific features of the Shared Service context, such as task interdependency
or turnover rates. At the end of the interview, I asked for further topics the informant
would like to talk about, prompting them for suggestions for what could also be
noteworthy. Lastly, I captured the socio-demographic data of the informants. It is
noteworthy, that the set of questions was (slightly) adapted or customized not only
to the specific context, which the informant is situated in, for example, flexible desk
policy at one location or restructurings at another location, but the questions also
evolved in the course of the data collection.
All interviews were audio-recorded. In total, I conducted 25 qualitative inter-
views with 23 interviews being individual face-to-face interviews, ranging from 31
to 157 min, in average 74 min. In addition, the interviews with two informants
(IF_25_GT2 and IF_27_GT2) were conducted via video conference, which allowed
me to immerse into the state-of-the-art communication technology of GlobalTech.
Focus groups or group interviews. One-to-one interviews with individuals and
focus groups are frequently combined within a single study. At the beginning of a
study, it can be helpful to conduct interviews with focus groups to explore relevant
topics of various informants and/or their context in order to align the data collection
with the research interests. Aligned with the idea of ‘mixing methods’, focus groups
can be useful either before or after one-to-one interviews, depending on the research
interest: the insights from interviewing focus groups might inform subsequent in-
depth interviews with individuals or alternatively, focus groups can be useful after
102 4 Method
in-depth, one-to-one interviews, because they may facilitate a discussion of different

individuals about topics of interest at a more strategic level (Ritchie and Lewis 2003:
38). Generally, the size of focus groups ranges from three to a maximum of ten
participants, which “have been selected because they share certain characteristics
relevant to the study’s questions” (Marshall and Rossman 2006: 114). Bringing a
couple of different individuals together to discuss a research topic as a group may be
perceived as a more naturalistic setting for them than the situations, where a single
interviewee is questioned by one interviewer as it is the case for in-depth, one-to-
one interviews (Ritchie and Lewis 2003: 37). Yet, as the setting of a focus group
is mostly constructed merely for the sake of data collection, the promise of being
a naturalistic research method should not be overrated. Nevertheless, focus groups
create a social context and allow the researcher to find out how individuals think
and talk about topics and how a verbal exchange with other individuals constructs,
shapes, generates or moderates their expressions. When listening to other people’s
opinions and understandings, individuals are inspired and form their own opinions
and understandings. Therewith, the setting promotes the individual’s reflection and
refinement of the own beliefs and understandings and stimulates a more comprehen-
sive expression of own circumstances, attitudes or behavior. The focus group setting
also provides an opportunity for direct and explicit debate of different opinions and
points of views as they emerge during a discussion of a diverse set of individuals
(Marshall and Rossman 2006: 114). The interviewer may encourage and moderate
the discussion of the focus group through asking questions related to the research
interest and to ‘navigate’ through the interview (Ritchie and Lewis 2003: 37).
In the present study, two different types of focus groups have been conducted.
In the initial phase of the field research, I was an inquirer who participated in one
‘informal’ meeting with 5 informants of GlobalMobility attending. In that setting,
the exchange between the informants was very naturalistic and very similar to the
day-to-day routine. Yet, the downside of that was that it was more difficult to guide the
discussions towards the research objectives and questions. The main objective was to
familiarize with the setting and the team and to get to know the spectrum of personally
important topics for the informants at GlobalMobility. At a later stage, the other focus
groups were conducted in a more structured nature, while the aforementioned general
stages of the interview have been borrowed for the focus groups. Therein, the main
objective was to see how discussion about specific ‘hot topics’ develop and enfold
in a discussion between colleagues, while I as a researcher was withdrawing to the
rather passive role of a moderator, solely interposing a new teaser from time to time
to guide the discussion to the topics of scholarly interest. All (focus) group interviews
were audio-recorded.
Interviews, either individual ones or focus groups, are often used in combination
with observation methods, because they allow the researcher to capture the inter-
viewees’ reconstruction of event or behaviors and their perspectives on how these
events and behaviors naturally arise and occur (Ritchie and Lewis 2003: 37–38).
Observation. General speaking, observation as a means of data collection is an
integral method in a variety of qualitative inquiries. It is well-suited for the discovery
of complex interactions in natural social settings, as it comprises the systematic not-

ing, recording and analysis of artifacts (objects) as well as events, behaviors and inter-
actions, as they occur. Therewith, observation allows the researcher to ‘see’ actions,
events and experiences through his or her own eyes. Ideally from the researcher’s
standpoint, the individuals involved in the observed ‘scenery’ do not construct or alter
their behaviors as a consequence of the observation. Observation is particularly suit-
able to analyze a ‘process’ involving several participants, because it not only enables
to capture the back and forth of the interaction, but also non-verbal communications
or behavioral consequences of events from a focal point of the investigation (Ritchie
and Lewis 2003: 35). This qualitative method assumes that behavior is purposeful
and expressive of deeper values and beliefs. Observations, as a means of data collec-
tion, can either contain observing activities, which are highly structured, potentially
guided by a checklist, to create detailed depictions of behaviors. Or alternatively, the
observation can strive to create a more holistic description of behavior and events. The
observation records produced are frequently referred to as field notes and comprise
detailed, non-judgmental, concrete descriptions of what has been observed. Those
field notes may alter in the course of the research progresses. For example, in the
early stages of a qualitative inquiry, researchers typically enter the setting only with
broad areas of interest to get an initial sense for the field. At this stage, predetermined
categories or observational checklists do not restrict the observation, wherefore the
field notes are more general and unstructured. With such an approach, the researcher
preserves the necessary openness to discover new and unexpected patterns of rela-
tionships and behaviors, which might be characteristic or recurring patterns in the
researched field. At this early stage of the research process, an analysis of the field
notes will allow the researcher to identify these patterns and on the basis of this
identification, the researcher can design appropriate and context-sensitive checklists
for the subsequent more focused observations. Such a more focused observation is
suitable at a later stage of the research process to find out whether analytic themes or
patterns also manage to explain relationships and behaviors over a longer period or
whether those themes or patterns can be discovered in varying settings (Marshall and
Rossman 2006: 98–99). Hence, the transition from a more open to a more focused
observation is based upon the observers’ comments and notes about the researched
field and can function as a quite fruitful source of analytic insights and clues to guide
through the data collection. Therewith, the data collection may be very sensitive to
the context.
If a researcher is conducting an observation in the field, an immersion to a certain
extent almost always occurs. Therefore, in anthropological and ethnographic research
the observation is an integral research method, because it provides “direct experiential
and observational access to the insiders’ world of meaning” (Jorgenson 1989: 15).
The immersive aspect of observation grants the researcher to see, hear and experience
the reality as the participants of the setting do. When the researcher spends some time
in the setting, he or she will learn more about how daily life passes there, not only
from the participants but also directly from his or her own experience. To capture
those experiences, it is crucial for the data collection that the researcher reflects on his
or her personal experiences, because they might provide new perspectives to make
104 4 Method
the strange familiar and the familiar strange (Glesne 1999; Marshall and Rossman
2006: 100).
I tried to immerse as a researcher in the daily life of the informants at GlobalMobil-
ity and GlobalTech. For example, I participated at public events tailored to different
stakeholders such as students or potential partners and customers. In addition, I spent
days in the office at the different locations, usually sitting at an unoccupied work-
place in between the informants to get a ‘feel for a typical day in the office’. This also
helped me to compare the different spaces and contexts the informants are located
in, maybe also influencing the way they work. Joining the informants for their lunch
break or for a small talk on the hallway also helped to find out what topics or issues
are currently discussed within the teams. Furthermore, for the sake of immersion at
GlobalTech, I volunteered to participate in some of their WebEx and TelePresence
meetings, which they have initiated as part of their usual everyday communication.
And as aforementioned, conducting one interview via a electronic conferencing tool
(WebEx) and one interview via video-conferencing (TelePresence) was also meant
for immersion and to satisfy my curiosity how the communication and relationship
building works by means of such a communication technology.
In order to document the observation, the principle means is through writing field
notes (Neyland 2008: 102). The field notes developed from being rather unstruc-
tured to being more and more focused and context-sensitive. Complying with the
common recommendation, the observations were regularly, preferably daily, cap-
tured by writing field notes (Van der Waal 2009: 35). In fact, in some situations it
was possible to smoothly integrate taking notes of my observations even incorpo-
rating direct quotes,1 for example during meetings taking notes is a routine activity
and it was not noticed by the informants surrounding me. Yet, in other situations
taking notes would have distracted the flow of communication, for example during
the small talk on the way to lunch. In those situations, I scribbled down some key
fragments or notes ad hoc as a memory aid for later. Once possible, the latest after
the time in the office, I wrote those initial notes up into something more coherent
(Neyland 2008: 102–103). In total around 20 pages of field notes and roughly 50
pictures from different locations at both companies bolster the documentation of the
observation. In sum, the following observational material is documented:
• Direct quotes of conversation sequences;
• Field notes of perceptions, nonverbal occurrences and context information;
• Drawings of the spatial and seating arrangements;
• 50 pictures of the inside and the outside of the different locations at both companies,
especially the working space and the conference rooms.
Documentary analysis. Frequently, researchers supplement the data collection
of conducting interviews and doing observations with the collection (and analysis)
of documents. These documents can either be compiled in the course of an every-
day event, which took place at the setting, or alternatively these documents can be
1 Quotesbased upon the scribbled down notes during the researcher’s observation will be marked
accordingly in the presentation of the findings: Quote (informant xyz, observation).
constructed specifically for the field research (Marshall and Rossman 2006: 107).
Therewith, the documentary analysis describes the study of (existing) documents, so
that the researcher can either understand their fundamental content or he or she is
able to derive a deeper meaning from the documents, maybe because of its coverage
or style. The spectrum of documents potentially interesting for the analysis is enor-
mous and the type of documents can either be public, institution-/team-internal or
private/individual (Ritchie and Lewis 2003: 35; Marshall and Rossman 2006: 107),
i.e. media reports, formal letters or financial accounts; government papers or procedu-
ral documents (all public); minutes of meetings, team presentations, strategy papers
(institution-/team-internal); or diaries, letters or photographs (personal/individual
documents). Such a documentary analysis is handy when the history of events or
experiences, the written communication or ‘private’ as well as ‘public’ accounts are
relevant for the research endeavor. The analysis of documentary sources is a con-
ducive method for those situations or events, which a researcher cannot investigate by
means of direct observation, surveys or interviews (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995;
Ritchie and Lewis 2003: 35). As all documents can potentially be useful in developing
an understanding of the setting and the teams I am studying, I analyzed the news-
paper coverage of GlobalMobility and GlobalTech during the course of this study.
This was particularly interesting, because both companies publically announced their
restructuring programs during my field research. Consequently, the public reaction
was also incorporated as a topic into the interviews. In sum, I collected the following
documents at GlobalMobility and GlobalTech:
• External documents such as publicity materials, job vacancies, press releases,
general news coverage,
• Internal documents such as team presentations and strategy papers.
4.3 Expert Interviews
In parallel to the field research at GlobalMobility and GlobalTech, the present

research was enriched through the conduction of expert interviews with management
consultants to collect context knowledge and zoom out of the field.
4.3.1 Sampling: Consultants with Virtual Team and Shared

Services Expertise
When reflecting about what constitutes an expert eligible for an expert interview,
one possibility could be that the expert status is attributed by the researcher: a person
is considered as an expert because of his or her role as an informant during the
study (Walter 1994: 271). This implicates, that who is considered as an expert and
who is not depends solely on the evaluation of the researcher and therewith it would
106 4 Method
be challenging to distinguish expert interviews from other interviewing techniques

(Meuser and Nagel 2009: 18). Thus, other scholars have stressed, that the criteria for
identifying an expert as an expert is its specific knowledge or expertise (e.g. Kruse
2014). This means, that a person is considered as an expert because the researcher
assumes that this person has specific knowledge or expertise, which is not (or hardly)
accessible to anybody else in the studied field of action (Meuser and Nagel 2009: 18).
This definition of experts emphasizes the specific functions such individuals have
and the specific knowledge or expertise they possess for or because of executing
this specific function. And precisely this specific knowledge or expertise shall be
captured and accessed through the conduction of an expert interview. Furthermore,
the expert status is linked with the power of defining the situation. Therewith, it is
ultimately still the researcher, who according to its research objectives selects who
to interview as an expert. But this is not an arbitrary choice anymore, but related to
the acknowledgement of an expert status within his or her field of action (Meuser
and Nagel 2009: 24).
With this in mind, I have sampled five management consultants with a consult-
ing emphasis on virtual teams and five management consultants with a consulting
emphasis on Shared Services. During the sampling, an interesting observation I made
was, that the majority of virtual team consultants where freelancer (or employed in
smaller firms), while the majority of Shared Services consultants were employed at
major consulting firms. In order to make sure that the ten interviewees are experts
recognized within their field of action, I defined the following selection criteria:
First, for the freelance consultants, I reviewed their portfolio of consulting projects
as a key selection criterion and only approached those who have done consulting
projects with big cooperations such as IBM, Siemens and SAP, utilizing this selection
criteria as a cue for their recognition in the field. The other experts I approached were
management consultants employed at major management consulting firm, e.g. Big
Four. This was the first selection criterion.
And second, I only considered the most senior management consultants as suit-
able. Specifically, I was approaching the managing directors and partners with the
respective consulting emphasis. This hierarchical level does not only (almost nat-
urally) link to years of experience and seniority, but also provides hunches for the
significance of their decisions and recommendations for the field. Quite likely, the
companies resorting to them for advice and consultation consider the managing
directors and partners as experts in their field of action and will comply with their
recommendations. Furthermore, in addition to the criteria mentioned above, some of
the experts in my sample were also recommendations by other consultants, which I
consider as another sign of their recognition as an expert in their field of action.
All interviewees were contacted via email and the expert interviews were con-
ducted face-to-face, usually at the experts’ place of work in different cities in Ger-
many, between May 2014 and December 2016. Participation is this study was volun-
tary and anonymity and protection was assured by a data protection agreement (see
Table 4.4).
4.3 Expert Interviews 107
Table 4.4 Sample of expert interviews

Name Consulting Job profile Nationality Age Gender (F=female, Date of
focus M=male) interview
Expert_1_VT Virtual Freelance German 46 F 2014-05-05
teams consultant
Expert_2_VT Virtual Freelance French 55 F 2014-06-12
teams consultant
Expert_3_VT Virtual Trainer at US-American 42 M 2014-06-23
teams mid-size
training firm
Expert_4_VT Virtual Freelance German 53 M 2016-10-27
teams consultant
Expert_5_VT Virtual Freelance German 56 F 2016-12-01
teams consultant
Expert_6_SSO Shared Partner at German 45 M 2014-06-05
Services international
consulting
firm
Services multinational
consulting
firm
Expert_8_SSO Shared Senior German 45 F 2014-08-12
Services managing
consultant at
international
company
Expert_9_SSO Shared Freelance German 47 M 2016-10-21
Services consultant
Services international
consulting
firm
4.3.2 Data Collection: Interviews
The motivation for conducting expert interviews were twofold: first, in the beginning
of the present study, prior to kicking off the extensive field research at GlobalMobil-
ity, the first couple of expert interviews were primarily to acquire context knowledge
about virtual teams and Shared Services in general. At this stage, the expert inter-
views functioned as a more explorative familiarization for me with the research
context. Second, moving on with the research project, the focus of the expert inter-
views shifted, and the interviews were conducted in parallel to the organizational field
research. During the peak phase of the data collection at GlobalMobility and Glob-
alTech as well as at the end of the overall research project, the ten expert interviews
were a good way to ‘zoom out’ of the immersive field research. As studying organiza-
tional settings ‘in-depth’ and ‘up-close’ confronts researchers with the question how
to ‘resurface’ (Ybema and Kamsteeg 2009: 103). To reflect with the management
108 4 Method
consultants about the findings of the field research in order to figure out which of
them are special and which findings are typical for virtual teams and Shared Services
was very helpful for the contextualization and validation of the findings of the field
research.
To better grasp the specificity of expert interviews, it is noteworthy that the main
difference between an expert interview and a semi-structured interview is not the
method of data collection but the target group (Kruse 2014: 168). An open interview
based on a topic guide may be considered appropriate for expert interviews. The
open interview provides room for the expert being interviewed to unfold his or her
reflections. Therefore, interviewing an expert should be based on general topics
and avoid closed questions and a guideline, which is too strictly prefixed. The effort
devoted to design the interview guide equips the interviewer with necessary thematic
competence to conduct a productive expert interview. Mostly, in expert interviews the
researcher cannot afford to be perceived as naïve, ignorant or incompetent (Meuser
and Nagel 2009: 32). For example, Trinczek (1995: 65) analyzed expert interviews
with managers and discovered that the ability and willingness of the interviewees “to
bring up their knowledge and viewpoints” is strongly determined by the competency
with which the interviewer is capable of presenting her- or himself (Meuser and Nagel
2009: 31–32). Therefore, I have structured the expert interviews in the following way:
starting with a general ice-breaker question about what makes either virtual teams or
Shared Services teams special, I have quickly presented that I am conducting field
research at two companies in parallel and would like to discuss with them specific
phenomena I have discovered there. And as the focus of those interviews is on action
strategies and criteria of decision-making connected with the particular position of
the expert, I prompted the expert to comment on the observations I have made at
GlobalMobility and GlobalTech, classifying them into their field of action and their
previous consulting projects. Additionally I asked for recommendations for action
on how to deal with potential cooperation problems I have identified. All ten expert
interviews were audio-recorded, conducted in German language and ranging from
64 to 165 min, in average 97 min.
4.3.3 Transcription and Data Analysis
The qualitative data collected in the course of the field research at GlobalMobility
and GlobalTech as well as during the expert interviews has been analyzed in the
following sequence: the first commonly behind-the-scenes step of analysis is the
transcription. Based on the transcripts, the next step of the data analysis was to find
patterns in the data through the means of qualitative content analysis.
Transcription. Transcription activities can be distinguished between two main
approaches: naturalism and denaturalism. Applying a naturalism approach, every
utterance is transcribed as detailed and precisely as possible. In contrast, in the
denaturalism approach the idiosyncratic elements of speech such as pauses, stut-
ters, nonverbal expressions or involuntary vocalizations are all excluded from the
transcripts. Each transcription approach can be linked to a certain view about what
language actually represents (Oliver et al. 2005). Through the lens of the naturalism
approach, language represents the real world and thus transcripts function as a verba-
tim reproduction of speech (Schegloff 1997). In contrast, the denaturalism approach
implies that the speech represents meanings and perceptions, which construct our
reality (Cameron 2001). Yet, these approaches are only the two ends of a contin-
uum of possible transcription approaches. Plenty of variations lie in-between with
the chance to deploy different elements of each approach based upon the analytical
objectives or research goals (Oliver et al. 2005: 1273–1274).
With this research focusing on the content rather than the conversation itself, I
have developed the following system of transcription notations. It comprises some
additional information besides the actually-existing speech, which may be mean-
ingful for the subsequent data analysis. This includes significant non-verbal activ-
ities such as laughing or sighing. As the actually-existing speech was fully tran-
scribed, incompleteness, repetitions and idiosyncrasies in articulation as well as
response/non-response tokens such as “yes…” have mostly also been transcribed. In
contrast, “um”, “ahem” and similar filler sounds of the informant or the interviewer
have not been transcribed. The quotes in the findings chapters exclude such tokens
of active listening such as “yes…” or “ermm …”2 as well as word repetitions and
“et cetera et cetera” (see Table 4.5).
The first few interviews at GlobalMobility and some of the expert interviews have
been transcribed by the researcher himself. Then, a professional service provider
has transcribed the remainder of the audio-recordings. In total, over 900 pages of
transcripts have been created.
Table 4.5 Transcription

IW Interviewer
notation
IF Informant
. Full stop or stopping fall in tone
; Weak fall in tone
? Strong rise of tone
, Weak rise of tone
: Speaker starts with direct quote
(..) or (…) Pause of 2 or 3 s
a Speaker emphasis
Wor/ Shows a sharp cut-off or incomplete word
(unv.) Word either not possible to understand or a
supposition
(laughing) Indicates a non-verbal activity
2 In the German transcripts: “Mhm (bejahend)”.

110 4 Method
Summarizing, the documentation of the conducted research at GlobalMobility,

GlobalTech and in the course of the expert interviews at the basis for the data analysis
comprises the following material:
• Official and internal corporate and team documents,
• Written field notes, drawings and pictures of the observation,
• Complete audio-recordings of the individual and focus group interviews,
• Complete transcription of the individual and focus group interviews.
Data analysis. All the transcripts and field notes of the participant observa-
tions from the field research at GlobalMobility and GlobalTech as well as the tran-
scripts from the 10 expert interviews were analyzed deploying a hybrid approach
of deductive and inductive elements of the qualitative content analysis outlined
by Margrit Schreier (2012). Qualitative content analysis is characterized by the
following elements:
• systematic in execution,
• flexible to be valid for material,
• reducing data.
The roots of its systematic nature are threefold: firstly, it is a process of going
through all the entire material in order to determine for each part of the material
whether it is relevant for the research endeavor and if it meets this criteria, it is
decided where the material fits best in the coding frame (Rustemeyer 1992; Shapiro
and Markoff 1997). Secondly, it is systematic, because it always involves the same
sequence of steps, regardless of the material. Thirdly, through the check of the coding
for consistency (reliability), the data analysis of qualitative content analysis goes
beyond individual understandings and interpretations. Besides its systematic nature,
qualitative content analysis is also flexible, as the coding frame has to be (inductively)
adapted to fit the material each time, in order to be valid. Last but not least, deploying
this method also reduces the material by limiting the analysis to relevant aspects of the
material in respect to the research question. The classification of specific information
as an instance of a category is equivalent to a subsumption of specific information
under a more general concept. Therewith, it also sets the ground for producing new
information by comparing cases (Schreier 2012: 5–9).
The present analysis does not attempt to be representative for the entire population
of hybrid virtual teams, but rather strives to approximate to the answers of the depicted
research questions. This requires remaining attentive and open to new and/or surpris-
ing insights in order to exploit the full potential of the qualitative data. To accomplish
this, the combination of deductive (theory-driven) and inductive (driven by empirical
data) development of categories is well suited. Only such a combination can ensure
a comprehensive capturing of the full data material (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane
2006). The combination of deductive and inductive elements holds two benefits: on
one side the preliminary considerations from theory can be incorporated, on the other
side the subjective views of the informants can be captured. Therewith, especially
the inductive part of the data analysis allows being open towards surprising insights,
a key characteristic of qualitative research.
Outlining the different steps of data analysis now, firstly, the main coder familiar-
ized with the transcripts by simply reading them (Ritchie and Spencer 2002). Then,
re-reading the transcripts the main coder began taking notes and identified prelimi-
nary codes and categories. The subsequent steps are inspired by the sequential model
of Schreier (2012), which combines deductive and inductive elements: deciding on
a research question; selecting the material; based on the preliminary considerations
from theory deductively building a coding frame, that usually comprises several main
categories, each with their own set of subcategories; dividing the material into units
of coding; trying out the coding frame through double-coding, a process step which
involves an additional researcher who is a doctoral candidate in social science as
well and familiar with the present study, followed by a discussion of units that were
coded differently until agreement was reached in order to ensure reliability and inter-
subjective replicability; evaluating the coding frame in terms of the consistency of
coding and in terms of validity and revising, modifying or deleting it accordingly and
where necessary inductively develop additional second-order themes, including the
addition of data-driven first-order concepts; coding all the material, using a revised
version of the coding frame and transforming the information to the case level; before
the findings can be interpreted and presented (Schreier 2012: 5–6), as illustrated in
the following table (see Table 4.6):
Following such a hybrid approach of deductive and inductive categorization, the
coding process is as near as possible to the material and at the same time considers
theoretical aspects (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006). The coding was facilitated
by MAXQDA 11 software program.
Table 4.6 Steps in qualitative content analysis

1 Deciding on the research questions
2 Selecting the material, familiarization with the transcripts
3 Building a coding frame (deductive)
4 Dividing the material into units of coding
5 Trying out the coding frame
6 Evaluating and modifying the coding frame according to material (inductive)
7 Main analysis
8 Interpreting and presenting the findings
Source Own illustration, based upon Schreier 2012: 6
112 4 Method
References
Bechhofer, F., & Paterson, L. (2000). Principles of research design in the social sciences. Routledge.
Blumer, H. (2004). Der methodologische Standort des symbolischen Interaktionismus. In J.
Strübing & B. Schnettler (Ed.), Methodologische interpretative Sozialforschung. Klassische
Grundlagentexte (pp. 319–387). Konstanz: UVK (UTB).
Bryman, A. (2001). Ethnography (Vol. 4). Sage Publications Ltd.
Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five approaches:
Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Paradigms and perspectives in transition. Handbook of
qualitative research, 2, 157–162.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2003). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid
approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.
Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography. Sage Publications, Inc.
Geertz, C. (1973). Notes on the balinese cockfight. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures
(pp. 412–453). New York: Basic Books.
Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of
Management Journal, 47(4), 454–462.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers. Addison Wesley.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Practices and principles. Routledge.
Hinds, P. J., & Cramton, C. D. (2012). Studying global work groups in the field. In A. B. Hollingshead
& M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and teams (5th ed., pp. 105–120).
New York: Routledge.
Irani, Z., Love, P. E., & Jones, S. (2008). Learning lessons from evaluating eGovernment: Reflective
case experiences that support transformational government. The Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 17(2), 155–164.
Jorgensen, D. L. (1989). Participant observation. Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kruse, J. (2014). Qualitative Interviewforschung. Ein integrativer Ansatz. Beltz Juventa.
Lyon, F., Möllering, G., & Saunders, M. (Eds.). (2012) Handbook of research methods on trust.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2009). The expert interview and changes in knowledge production. In A.
Bogner, B. Littig & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing experts. Palgrave Macmillan.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. A sourcebook of new methods
(2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Neyland, D. (2008). Organizational Ethnography. Sage Publications.
Oliver, D. G., Serovich, J. M., & Mason, T. L. (2005). Constraints and opportunities with interview
transcription: Towards reflection in qualitative research. Social Forces, 84(2), 1273–1289.
Pole, C., & Lampard, R. (2002). Practical social investigation: Qualitative and quantitative research
in the social sciences. Prentice-Hall.
Pratt, M. G., & Kim, N. (2012). Designing for drift: Planning ethnographic qualitative research on
groups. In Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to approaches, tools, and
technologies (6–30). Routledge.
References 113
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students
and researchers. Sage Publications.
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. The
Qualitative Researcher’s Companion, 573(2002), 305–329.
Rustemeyer, R. (1992). Praktisch-methodische Schritte der Inhaltsanalyse. Münster: Aschendorff.
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text? Whose context?. Discourse & society, 8(2), 165-187.
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage Publications.
Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yalow, D. (2009). Reading and writing as method: In search of trustworthy
tests. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels & F. H. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational ethnography.
Studying the complexity of everyday life (pp. 56–82). Sage.
Shapiro, G., & Markoff, J. (1997). A matter of definition. Text analysis for the social sciences:
Methods for drawing statistical inferences from texts and transcripts, 1, 9-34.
Trinczek, R. (1995). Experteninterviews mit Managern: Methodische und methodologische Hinter-
gründe. In C. Brinkmann, A. Deeke & D. Völkel (Eds.), Experteninterviews in der Arbeitsmarkt-
forschung. Diskussionsbeiträge zu methodischen Fragen und praktische Erfahrungen (=BeitrAB
191) (pp. 59–67). Nürnberg.
Van der Waal, K. (2009). Getting going: Organizing ethnographic fieldwork. In S. Ybema, D.
Yanow, H. Wels, & F. H. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational ethnography. Studying the complexity
of everyday life (pp. 23–39). London: Sage.
Van Maanen, J. (1979). The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative science
quarterly, pp. 539–550.
Van Maanen, J. (1998). Qualitative studies of organizations (Vol. 1). Sage.
Walter, W. (1994). Strategien der Politikberatung. Die Interpretation der Sachverständigen-Rolle
im Lichte von Experteninterviews. In R. Hitzler, A. Honer & C. Maeder (Eds.), Expertenwissen.
Die institutionalisierte Kompetenz zur Konstruktion von Wirklichkeit (pp. 268–284). Opladen:
Westdeutscher Verlag.
Warner, W. L. (1947). The social system of the modern factory. The strike: A social analysis.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies.
New York: Free Press.
Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street corner society. The social structure of an Italian slum. Chicago, US:
The University of Chicago Press.
Yanow, D., & Geuijen, K. (2009). Defining, organizational ethnography’: Election criteria. In S.
Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, & F. H. Kamsteeg (Eds.), organizational ethnography. Studying the
complexity of everyday life (pp. 253–259). London: Sage.
Ybema, S., & Kamsteeg, F. (2009). Making the familiar strange: A case for disengaged organiza-
tional ethnography. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, & F. H. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational
ethnography. Studying the complexity of everyday life (pp. 101–119). London: Sage.
Ybema, S., Yanow, D., Wels, H., & Kamsteeg, F. H. (2009). Studying everyday organizational
life. In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, & F. H. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational ethnography:
Studying the complexity of everyday life (pp. 1–20). London: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Chapter 5
Findings: Expressions of Contextual
Challenges
One contribution of the study presented in this book is to provide a detailed, context-
sensitive and informant-driven answer to the research question about how members
of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations experience the contextual
challenges of distance, technology and temporality. These three sensitizing concepts
of the contextual challenges were insight-leading during the empirical study. Further,
the rather broad concepts functioned as an orientation to identify a total of thirteen
different expressions of the contextual challenges for members of hybrid virtual teams
in Shared Services Organizations. Thus, I will (1) give an overview of the findings
related to the challenging context, then (2) I will depict the two contextual challenges
and their respective ten expressions of the contextual challenges originating from the
hybrid virtual team context and afterwards (3) I will display the contextual challenge
and the respective three expressions of the contextual challenge, which originate
from the context of the Shared Services Organizations.
5.1 Overview: Data Structure of Challenging Context
Numerous contextual challenges of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Orga-

nizations may lead to cooperation problems. Thereby the sensitizing concepts of
contextual challenges related to distance, technology and temporality were specified
and problematized based upon the informant’s experience with those three contex-
tual challenges. Consequently, the three contextual challenges potentially leading
to cooperation problems in those teams are now (1) faultlines through distance and
(2) disconnection through communication technology, which both originate from
the hybrid virtual team context and (3) discontinuity through temporality of team
composition, which originates from the context of Shared Services Organizations.
Table 5.1 summarizes the overall data structure of the challenging context together
with the associated contextual challenges and the respective expressions of those
contextual challenges:

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34300-2_5
116 5 Findings: Expressions of Contextual Challenges
Table 5.1 Data structure of challenging context

Dimension = Context Second-order themes First-order concepts (codes)a
(categories)a = Contextual = Expressions of contextual
challenges challenges
Hybrid virtual teams Faultlines through distance • Psychological distance
(see Sect. 5.2.2) • Location determines
subgroup-belonging
• Missing spontaneous
encounters
• Increased anonymity due to
limited visibility
Disconnection through • Lack of informal
communication technology communication
(see Sect. 5.2.3) • Missing visual cues of
reaction
• Lower communication
frequency
• Non-response
• Intimacy gap
• Less focus on interaction
partner due to multitasking
Shared Services Organization Discontinuity through • Uncertainty due to
temporality of team Changing Organizational
composition (see Sect. 5.3.2) Structure
• Looming threat of future
layoffs
• Interaction with New
Colleagues (labor
turnover)
a Inductively derived categories and codes in italic
In the subsequent sections of this chapter, I will illustrate how the informants expe-
rience the contextual challenges related to the challenging context of hybrid virtual
teams and then illustrate the informants’ experience with the contextual challenges
originating from the Shared Services Organization context.
5.2 Context of Hybrid Virtual Teams
The members of hybrid virtual teams likely experience two contextual challenges,
which are informed by the sensitizing concepts of the contextual challenges related
to distance and technology. Hence, I will (1) introduce in what way the findings from
the empirical study allow to move beyond the rather broad theory-based sensitizing
concepts to a more detailed understanding of the contextual challenges, which are
characteristic for hybrid virtual team. Afterwards, I provide more details about both
of them by (2) outlining the empirical findings related to the contextual challenges
of faultlines through distance and then (3) outlining the empirical findings regarding
the contextual challenge of disconnection through communication technology.
5.2 Context of Hybrid Virtual Teams 117
5.2.1 Introduction to the Expressions of Contextual

Challenges in Hybrid Virtual Teams
The empirical study presented in this book helps to better capture the actual com-
plexity and various manifestations of the contextual challenges of hybrid virtual
teams. The two sensitizing concepts of the contextual challenges related to dis-
tance and technology inform the specification of the contextual challenges based
upon the empirical research. Therewith, I move beyond the theoretical, yet broad,
concepts of distance and technology to a more comprehensive and nuanced under-
standing of the respective contextual challenges for members of hybrid virtual
teams. By conceptualizing them as ‘faultlines through distance’ and ‘disconnec-
tion through communication technology’ I also emphasize their problematic nature
for the cooperative efforts between members of hybrid virtual teams. I categorize
a total of ten different expressions of contextual challenges under those two con-
textual challenges. The expressions are almost entirely inductively derived from the
interviews with the informants and experts in the field and are meant to display the
experiences of the individuals, which encounter those challenges on a day-to-day
basis, to its full extent.
5.2.2 Faultlines Through Distance
The global segmentation of work combined with the distribution of workers is char-
acteristic for hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations. Yet, the actual
as well as the perceptual distance between each other may create faultlines, which
hamper the joint cooperative efforts of the team members. In sum, I could identify
four expressions of contextual challenges related to faultlines through distance: (1)
psychological distance in general, (2) location determining the subgroup-belonging,
(3) missing spontaneous encounters and (4) an increased anonymity through limited
visibility, which is caused by the physical separation.
5.2.2.1 Psychological Distance
Hybrid virtual teams are a common feature of Shared Services Organizations (SSOs).
Two Shared Services experts exemplarily outline that there is typically a segmentation
of work across different locations, because some Shared Service activities can be
performed at a central location and other activities need to remain local. Yet, while
the local business partners are still ‘on site’, their colleagues in the central Service
Centers appear distant, not only from their local colleagues point of view, but also
from their customer’s perspective:
the hundred per cent Accounting in very rare cases are completely transferred into a Service
Centre. This is more an eighty twenty solution. Twenty per cent are remaining local for some
kind of, let’s say, local stories. That is normal. That is the norm. (Expert_6_SSO)1
There are activities, which cannot simply be done from Budapest, I don’t know, everything,
what requires personal contact […] For this it will always have people. And some kind of
support function it will always have […] also you need support services, which they can do
on site. (Expert_9_SSO)
Similarly to the experts, one informant at GlobalTech explains, that in Shared

Services Organizations usually some employees are kept locally as business partners
to satisfy the needs of the customers on the local site:
everyone wants to have the experts on site and not abroad […] Everyone likes to have the
HR-contact person and the payroll people preferably on site. (IF_24_GT1)
In addition, the virtual team experts mention geographic distance as the most
characteristic and at the same time most challenging aspect of virtual teamwork.
Thereby, multiple experts further reflect, that a geographic distance between the
individual team members can likely lead to a psychological distance within the team:
Yes of course the geographic distance […] the people are not at the same location […] if it
is about the distinctiveness, also which influence the distance has on the team life, that is
very diverse […] that you do not see each other and that you do not have a daily exchange.
(Expert_2_VT)
they work at two different locations, for a longer period, permanent. We have seven people
in Germany, we have the same number in the other country. But that is far away. We have
recognized immediately, that there is no trust at all. It did not work. (Expert_1_VT)
In consistency with the experts, the informants at GlobalMobility describe the geo-
graphic dispersion as characteristic and challenging for their teamwork. For instance,
they stress the physical separation as problematic:
and now also spatially divided. (IF_6_GM1)
the spatial separation is a little bit a problem. (IF_2_GM1)
In addition, during a focus group interview two informants explain, that they per-
ceive the geographic dispersion as one of the most problematic aspects of working in
a hybrid virtual team. They further explain, that they sense a kind of psychological
distance towards their fellow team members, who are geographically distant, espe-
cially compared to the feeling of connection they have towards the collocated team
members:
IF_18_GM3: What I see as a problem is that they are not here. You are talking with somebody
who is far away, with somebody that maybe you don’t see. And you don’t have the same feeling
or/How to describe it?
IF_19_GM3: It’s not the same connection with a person that you have in front of you.
IF_18_GM3: Exactly.
1 The interviews have been conducted in German or English. The quotes from the German-speaking
interviews have been translated into English by me prior to presenting them now.
Similarly, one informant at GlobalTech elaborates, that due to the fact that he and
his team are physically not in the same office, the personal touch of a team is missing.
He further elaborates, that the advantage of collocation is the chance for intense and
automatic with a lot more personal information available leading to psychological
closeness, an aspect he is missing with his fellow team members, who work at distant
locations:
You don’t know what else is going on (…) so there is with the virtual (..) or even so and so
the personal aspect, if you feel it, you can do a lot (…) But it is not comparable one on one
with a – let’s say – physically in the same office, because there you can/there happens just a
lot more automatically from time to time, what is lost in the virtual. But there are situations
in everyday office life, where suddenly the one or the other happens and you fell a lot more,
who is feeding each other’s lines and who is not. But you see it and hear it. And others see
and feel it too, that is a little bit difficult with the virtual. (IF_24_GT1)
5.2.2.2 Location Determines Subgroup-Belonging
The location can be of paramount importance in hybrid virtual teams. The field
research showed, that the emergence of subgroups happens based upon location and
leads to a distinction between in- and outgroups. Thus, I now describe the formation
of subgroups based upon location as a common phenomenon in hybrid virtual teams.
One expert describes the phenomenon of “us versus them” due to location-based
subgroups in Shared Services Organizations as “those are the ones in the center
and we are the locals” (Expert_8_SSO). Virtual team experts explain, that they are
familiar with the formation of subgroups based upon location. They describe it as
“my clique on site” (Expert_1_VT). In a similar vein, one expert adds that ‘local’ is
commonly preferred over ‘global’ in virtual teams:
Okay, so to say I try to find a solution locally, to proceed locally and sometime it appears as
if local forms alliances against the rest of the world. (IW: What does that mean? Form local
alliances?) Okay, that I drum up all the people and yes, that such things develop […] than
you create allies on site. (Expert_1_VT)
At GlobalMobility, asking the informants which co-workers they consider as part

of their team, they struggle to make a clear statement. They state, that the same
location in the sense of being in the same office can be a criterion. Therefore a hybrid
virtual team falling apart in subgroups based upon location is likely:
(IW: That means, according to which criteria are you determining the boundaries?) Yes,
probably, whether you see each other daily and if you are sitting together in a room.
(IF_6_GM1)
Furthermore, the informant elaborates, that the geographic dispersion is problem-

atic for the attribution of who is part of the ‘perceived’ team:
the (colleagues in Romania) belong into my team, but because of the geographic dispersion
is a little bit a problem. (IF_2_GM1)
In the hybrid virtual team of GlobalMobility’s Shared Services Organization,

which is based at three different locations, at every location the team members per-
ceive the other two locations as distant. For example, one GlobalMobility informant
explains that she perceives her fellow team members at the other German location
as “hillbilly” (IF_6_GM1). Even though the distance in kilometers is not so far, she
feels that they are “extraordinary far away” (IF_6_GM1). They are far away, because
they do not experience the same changes and pressure as she does at her own loca-
tion. Due to that, she feels that they are ‘excluded’ from shared team experiences.
Such elaborations are also hunches for an ingroup-outgroup distinction based upon
location:
To be honest, that I perceive as negative. And they appear to be a little hillbilly to me,
because they are so far away. You know, what is happening in Location in Germany (GM1)
and all these restructurings and this enormous pressure, which is pressuring everyone and
so. I’m of the opinion, they do not catch on to that, they live beneath a covering (‘Glocke’).
(IF_6_GM1)
At GlobalTech, one informant describes a similar feeling, as she mentions that due
to the fact that she visits the location of her dispersed hybrid virtual team members
very rarely, she finds it difficult to identify with them. When she refers to them as
“the people”, this provides hunches for an ‘us versus them’ distinction based upon
location:
Yes, you know, I do not travel that often to Switzerland, that’s why/Yes, I was there only once.
Then it is difficult, to – you know, to somehow identify with the people. (IF_28_GT5)
Thus, in the hybrid virtual teams of GlobalMobility and GlobalTech the sub-
group formation is based upon location and hence the location of the team members
determine the belonging to specific subgroups to a certain extent.
5.2.2.3 Missing Spontaneous Encounters
Members of hybrid virtual teams frequently feel distant from other members of
the team, because they miss the spontaneous encounters of co-workers due to their
dispersion across multiple locations. The virtual team experts unanimously explain
during the interviews, that one of the major drawbacks of the different locations in
a hybrid virtual team are the missing spontaneous encounters. For example, being
at different locations hampers to have a chat with each other over a casual cup of
coffee:
you cannot meet each other or cannot simply go for a coffee together. (Expert_2_VT)
Feeling closer with each other at the same location is easier than when working
at different locations, because the spontaneity of interaction and communication is
lacking for the team members of hybrid virtual teams:
Okay, it is of course easier, to be closer at the location, which allows and simplifies all the
informal contact, that practically develop by itself, because you walk down the hallway,
stand at a coffee machine together, or are in the restaurant at noon, or whatever, and this is
incidental. And it is not incidental in a virtual team. (Expert_5_VT)
One of the informants at GlobalMobility hypothesizes, that when his dispersed

colleagues would actually be at the same location with him, the communication
would be different. Being collocated allows to interact simply ‘when passing by’
the workplace of a team member, yet such ‘passing by’ is not possible with the
non-collocated team members in hybrid virtual teams:
the kind of communication would be a different one. Okay, that I just go over to them, climb
the stairs. (IF_2_GM1)
At GlobalTech, an informant elaborates that the relationship building with

a co-worker takes more time, when the spontaneous encounters and the personal
exchange is missing. Such encounter typically happen when working in the same
office, but are missing in the virtual collaboration:
But that/when it’s when it’s not a direct relation, so when the people are abroad, that/that
takes more time, because it’s over the call, that you know, ah, yes, you/(…) But that’s/but it’s
not/you know, when you have a colleague in the office with you, then you go to the coffee
machine, you start talking and everything, and then it’s/you know, it’s easier. While, if you
have someone in Singapore just to build this relationship and to know, what the person is
interested in, it takes more time. (IF_25_GT2)
Consistently, another informant notes, that she values when a team member from
another location comes over to visit her. Then, during the visit the ‘act of drinking a
coffee together’ seems to allow for a personal exchange. Interestingly, her examples
of things to talk about implicate that even some of the ‘basic’ personal information
has not been exchanged virtually so far:
Meeting face-to-face is good, where someone is coming, especially when you don’t see the
person often, when you don’t have chance to/to grab your coffee, to go to talk about you/How
is your life? How are the things in Switzerland? Have you ever been to Poland? What do you
like? What you don’t like? Or I don’t know, which teams are you working with? How/how
many years have you been working for the company?. (IF_29_GT5)
One informant explains, that being collocated rather than dispersed has an effect
on the development of a working relationship, because when working at another
location, it is impossible to have unplanned informal encounters and to meet someone
in the office by chance:
as well in the office […] meeting and then we were like: Ah, hello, and hello, and hello! And
that was/no one says “hello” when you/when you meet each other on the laptop (virtual).
And that was heady. […] And if I would see them every day or see more often, it would have
an impact on the working relationship, for sure. (IF_27_GT2)
Similarly, another explains the missing on spontaneous encounters, when being

physical distant to each other:
It is more difficult, because you need – let’s say – to approach it more consciously. If you
are physically in the same office, you have a lot more opportunities, where you simply – lets
say – informally meet and feel. Or you feel as well/Or one hears maybe discussions or talks
from other people, and yes, this is completed lost. (IF_24_GT1)
The exchange of personal information is limited, when such spontaneous inter-

actions and encounters are missing. This hampers the development of a relationship
between the members of a hybrid virtual team with the consequence, that members
of hybrid virtual teams might feel distant from each other.
5.2.2.4 Increased Anonymity Due to Limited Visibility
Members of hybrid virtual teams face the contextual challenge that at least some of
their team members are working at another location, quite naturally reducing their
visibility. Thereby, the less members of a hybrid virtual team actually see each other,
the more anonymous the other members of the team become. Numerous experts (e.g.
Expert_1_VT) explain, that due to the fact that the members of hybrid virtual teams
do not see each other on a day-to-day basis, hybrid virtual teams are frequently more
anonymous. The limited visibility makes it more difficult to assess the ‘anonymous’
others:
That the people do not see each other. Yes, that the people do not see each other definitely
[…] There is a great anonymity in virtual teams […] what the other person concerns, when I
don’t see them. I have more problems assessing them, so a higher anonymity. (Expert_1_VT)
At GlobalMobility, one informant explains, that she is missing the personal rela-
tionship with her colleagues at the other locations. She states that they are far away,
even comparing her dispersed colleagues with robots:
But for that we are too far away. One is/Yes, that is too robot-like for me, you know? That is
personally to far away for me. (IF_1_GM1)
Interestingly, an informant at GlobalTech tells, that it is easier for her to be very

angry with an anonymous colleague of whom she only knows the name, compared
to a less anonymous colleague. It seems like the more you know somebody, the more
likely you will have sympathy for the interaction partner:
And sometimes in your day-to-day-job you can get really frustrated with/with some small
items or the person is not answering your question and then you get/You know, it’s just a
name. And then you can be really angry at this name. While if you know the person, you have
met this person and you know a bit about this person, then you/you are more/you know, you
can say, okay, well, yes, maybe she is busy with the kids or, you know, it’s different. Then,
after your interaction with this person, it’s different. (IF_25_GT2)
Especially since you hardly know anyone for real now. (IF_8_GM2)
Well, that adds on top, there are so many new names. (IF_1_GM1)
In conclusion, the geographic dispersion of hybrid virtual team members across

different locations prevents them to have spontaneous encounters. Yet, missing such
encounters and not seeing each other in the office, increases the anonymity of the
dispersed colleagues. The actual and psychological distance may lead to faultlines
in the hybrid virtual team, with the chance of putting the cooperation at risk.
5.2.3 Disconnection Through Communication Technology
The imposed reliance on communication technology to collaborate with the other

members of the team is a key characteristic of hybrid virtual teams. It has an influence
on the cooperation of the members in hybrid virtual teams, that they are imposed
to rely on communication technology for collaborate with each other. Specifically,
the cooperation within hybrid virtual teams may be at risk, because the reliance on
communication technology may lead to a disconnection between the individual team
members. Based upon the insights from the field research, I identified six expressions
of contextual challenges, which relate to the feeling of disconnection because of the
reliance on communication technology: (1) lack of informal communication; (2)
missing visual feedback; (3) lower communication frequency; (4) increased number
of non-response; (5) larger intimacy gap and (6) risk of focusing less on interaction
partners due to multitasking.
5.2.3.1 Lack of Informal Communication
The communication between members of hybrid virtual teams usually contains less
informal exchange, which may lead to a feeling of disconnection between the indi-
vidual team members. The interviewed experts for virtual teamwork elaborate, that
it is a common shortcoming in virtual teams that their electronic communication
focuses entirely on the task or content. This is problematic, because omitting the
informal communication hinders the establishment of a relationship with the other
members of the virtual team. As the expert further notes, such relationships could
be beneficial for the task completion, because it enables to find out what inputs the
interaction partner may need, whether the other has actually understood the task or
how the interaction partner will handle the task:
What is problematic with virtual teams, as I said, is that we concentrate on content. But
quite often, we concentrate not on what people get and how they understand and how they
will use something. (Expert_3_VT)
Another expert for virtual teamwork comments on her observation, that the mem-
bers of virtual teams constrain their communication via technology to pre-specified
topics and formal task-related communication. She observes, that the people struggle
to find a way to translate the small talk from face-to-face into the virtual environment.
In consequence, they do not know what kind of person their virtual co-workers are
or what they are currently dealing with. Thus, members of hybrid virtual teams stay
‘disconnected’ from each other:
If I meet that colleague by chance on the hallway, do you show him PowerPoints first? Of
course, you don’t do that, yes you do small talk. Yes and? Virtually with your colleague, the
one sitting in France, in India or in the USA, when do you do small talk? Yes, not, we have
a meeting and we show a PowerPoint. So, that I mean with not appropriate, when you have
the need to have small talk with the colleague in the USA or to know how he is or I have not
heard from him in a while, or from her, what is happening there or somehow, the relationship
is a little not so clear, one would like to know, who are you? It would be good, if this need
is sensed or felt, than you don’t know by which media I can do it. So the one which replaces
small talk so that say, or could replace, virtually. (Expert_2_VT)
In line with the examples of the virtual team experts, a GlobalMobility informant
states, that her emails usually do not contain any informal communication or private
information:
In the email it does never say that no. At the most, I write at the bottom ‘have a nice day’ or
so. But such things directly in the email, never. So via mail there is basically never anything
private, I’d say. (IF_7_GM2)
In the same vein, one GlobalMobility informant from another location admits,
that her communication technology is very problem-focused and not containing any
small talk or personal questions:
Well, it is relatively problem-focused. So, it is no small talk, it is no “How are you?” or
anything, but rather always targeted to a specific problem, what I need to learn with the one
or the other department. Be it master data problems or some kind of instruction or one of
those. (IF_3_GM1)
Moreover, during the field research at GlobalTech, an informant explains that

her communication technology is task-oriented and efficient (‘don’t have the time’),
especially as she has to accomplish something during working hours. She further
pictures to herself that having an informal communication about private, non-task
related topics via Instant Messaging would be unimaginable. Interestingly though,
in contrast doing a small talk face to face appears to be appropriate for her:
But (laughing) (normally) during working hours you don’t really have time to have so many
chats […] And imagine, like I’m calling to via (JABA) to everyone and I’m just talking about
those things […] small talks, which I’m having, like on the way to grab my coffee with
someone, who is visiting office […] For small talks, for having coffee. […] there are different
things, which you want to achieve. There are different things being part of your role, part of
your job. (IF_29_GT5)
Another GlobalTech informant explains, that her virtual communication is pre-

scheduled and focused on operational matters and tasks only. She further elaborates,
that missing out on private topics preserves a certain level of uncertainty about the
interaction partner, thus altering the cooperation and posing a significant contextual
challenge for building a relationship with her hybrid virtual team members:
Because there is always an uncertainty, because the client due to that, that they are not
collocated, you get 30 min once a month to/There you can of course/that is again another
kind of collaboration. There you can’t develop such relationship, because I also need to
cover private and with a full agenda. Well that is a huge challenge. (IF_27_GT4)
5.2.3.2 Missing Visual Cues of Reaction
Missing visual cues of the reaction from the interaction partner as a form of feedback
is another typical element of virtual teamwork, which makes it more challenging for
the individual team members to establish a connection. One of the experts assumes,
that the current state of communication technology is not sufficient to fully satisfy
the peoples’ need for visual feedback. Therefore, he concludes, that as long as the
connection is not as seamless as a face-to-face connection, the fact of not being in
the same room will be evident:
They always need a visual feedback from the counterpart, so that you see, how does he react
body language-wise, how does he react in the face […] A resolution, where you can detect
facial reactions. And they told me, only once this is possible, the people would be willing
to abandon flying. You get the people physically separated, when they have the feeling, that
they don’t have to accept a loss of information, when they don’t sit in the same room, because
the capture the person in its entirety and within a split second assess the reactions and can
react upon them. At the moment, that you can’t do with video conferencing today. But of
course it helps, when you can look into somebody’s face in a discussion and sense, how he
reacts. Does he understand or does he stave me off. (Expert_9_SSO)
One GlobalMobility informant explains, that she considers it as critical to actually

see the interaction partner in situ, in order to figure out whether the co-worker has
actually understood it or not. She stresses, that she appreciates the visual feedback,
because only the verbal confirmation leaves room for doubt and uncertainty. But
because the communication technology does not transmit such cues of visual feed-
back, she keeps wondering if she was actually successful in imparting the details of
a certain task to her interaction partner:
But despite all the media technology with screens […] I am of the opinion, it is better if you
have the personal contact here, basically in order to discuss things consecutively and then
to show it right away. Because of the seeing of the colleague you also see: Has he actually
understood it, what I’m placing value on, or has he not understood? Because now, one hears:
‘Okay, I have understood.’ But you don’t see it. (IF_8_GM2)
Another informant from GlobalTech emphasizes the importance of immediate

visual feedback such as facial expressions to figure out whether he got the message
across to his interaction partner. Without such visual feedback, he explains that some
level of uncertainty remains:
Yes, facial expressions, gesture, but of course the shining. When you see the facial expressions,
when I say something and the person shines, that I maybe don’t see on the phone, thus I am
not quite sure, was it well received or not. And sometimes a look is worth a thousand words,
then you don’t need to keep on telling. (IF_24_GT1)
Some level of uncertainty in the collaboration with an interaction partner remains,

when an immediate visual feedback is missing due to the reliance on communication
technology. This uncertainty can lead to a feeling of disconnection from the virtual
interaction partner.
5.2.3.3 Lower Communication Frequency
The collaboration via communication technology is not as seamless as communicat-

ing face-to-face, wherefore the individual members of a team may be less inclined
to take on the burden to communicate with their virtual interaction partner. One of
the experts for virtual teams explains, that the frequency of communication between
the members of hybrid virtual teams is lower, because it requires extra effort by
the individual to choose the ‘right’ media. Some hybrid virtual team members may
perceive it as too big of a hassle to accomplish a fit between the media and their
respective objective of communication or interaction, wherefore they do not even
start a communication at all:
And it influences it in that way, that the barriers or the inhibition thresholds are emerging,
inhibition threshold of communication. And that the people very often don’t exactly know,
which communication media or tools or channels or however one wanna call it, which
instruments of communication they could use or should, for which kind of communication.
That is, how it affects. (Expert_2_VT)
Similarly, an informant shares how she constantly weighs up the pros and cons
of selecting a media for communication. In the course of this weighing process, she
potentially decides that sending out the inquiry is not needed:
So you know, it’s/it depends really, how urgent is the issue and what you really need. And
you/then you have to assess the way of contact and adapt it to the/you know, to the situation.
(IF_29_GT5)
A GlobalMobility informant elaborates that she caught herself communicating

less due to the imposed reliance on communication technology. To her, direct com-
munication is more convenient and instantaneous than writing her inquiry down,
wherefore some of her inquiries are simply dropped:
Well I don’t like it. I would like/Well in the direct communication to the people you can say it
totally different and show something as well. Maybe they don’t know it or maybe one has/one
understands it not the first time all the time. And then you can more easy inquire. I think,
with the writing, then the inquiry is omitted quite often. Because he thinks, ach, now I have
to write again. (IF_5_GM1)
Moreover, one GlobalTech informant explains, that she prefers to have people
nearby, because the communication is easier. She states, that the frequency of com-
munication is higher in direct on-site communication, because she applies some kind
of threshold when communicating with her remote colleagues:
But with people who are here it is much easier because you can quicker talk to them, discuss
with them, even one question ask just now. I am not calling to E. in City Wa. with one question.
I just collecting the subjects I think. I personally prefer to have somebody on site, not remote.
(IF_31_GT5)
Analogous, another informant states, that she does not contact her dispersed col-
league right away with every open point, but to approach her colleague less frequently
she rather collects a couple of them:
if I for example feel, that I have two or three or five topics there, at once, then I ask him,
when he has an hour for me and we set up such one-to-one meeting for us (…) When I know,
that is something which can wait two or three days, then I write him: Do you have time for
an hour this afternoon for me? (IF_28_GT5)
The members of hybrid virtual teams are communicating less frequently, because
the communication via communication technology is not as seamless as direct face-
to-face communication. The lower frequency might lead to a disconnection between
the members of the hybrid virtual team. Moreover, the cooperative efforts of the
hybrid virtual team may not be as coordinated, because of the lower number of
inquiries and the less frequent status updates.
5.2.3.4 Non-response
The number of non-responses is often higher in hybrid virtual teams, because the
recipients of an (electronic) inquiry may attribute a different level of urgency to reply
than the sender of the inquiry originally intended. One virtual team’s expert indicates,
that non-response frequently causes frustration in the virtual communication, because
the cooperation between the interaction partner is ‘on hold’ until the response is
received:
Well the frustration develops when I don’t get an answer. I send something out and I don’t
receive an answer. (IW: And what happens with the collaboration, when there is frustration?)
It comes to a halt. It comes to a halt. They take care of other things. (Expert_1_VT)
More precisely, one GlobalTech informant describes, that he prefers to approach

team members around him in case he has a question or needs support, because with
such direct communication it is easier to get a response from the team. Analogous
for the virtual communication, he explains that when posting the same question in a
group of colleagues using Instant Messenger, the likelihood of non-response is higher.
First, because every member of the messenger group might assume that someone
else is taking over the ownership to respond to his questions. Second, the others’
attention is not as exclusive on the Instant Messenger, compared to communicating
with somebody face-to-face:
Team around here. […] if I have an issue, which I like to have an answer, then I look for a
person in the office. […] I mean, the real life or the real contact is easier […] this is not
the issue of the real contact. Maybe this is the issue, because you have a group of people.
So you/I mean, so similar frame would be to create the multi-chat (..) via (JABA), so add a
couple of persons and chat […] But from my perspective, I mean, I don’t like it, because there
is/usually there is/(..) it’s hard to get information from the group sometimes. […] Because
if there is a group, there is a/people think/people don’t/they don’t feel/their responsibility is
spread, right. So if you ask the/if you raise the question in the group, on a chat, for instance,
and everyone is busy, so first of all they can assume, that someone else will respond. […]
((smiling)) they hope, that someone else responds. So they/So this is the first thing. And
second thing is that it’s harder to (bring) the concentration on the chat good, right, than
in the real life. Because in the real life you just approach the person and ask him directly.
(IF_30_GT5)
An informant explains, that she prioritizes her emails in important and unimportant
emails. Then, she postpones the answer to those emails, which she considers as ‚less
important email’, for later. As such an assessment is subjective to a certain extent,
her non-response to emails may have negative effects for the requesting interaction
partner:
So you know, so sometimes, you know, usually like I’m responding usually to kind of less
important emails in the evening. (IF_29_GT5)
During a focus group interview at GlobalMobility, three informants describe, that

a non-response is more likely when there is no possibility that requestor and recipient
may meet each other face-to-face. The three informants have experienced that the
felt immediacy to answer is higher when the interaction partner is located in the same
office, whereas somebody dispersed can more easily non-respond. The pressure to
answer seems to be higher when being collocated and, if necessary, the pressure can
even be emphasized in a direct face-to-face communication. This stand in contrast
with situations, where the different members of the team work at different locations:
And for sure it’s more/you cannot solve as the fast/the fastest a problem, if that person is
in Germany, as you can solve it here with somebody from Romania, because you can go
directly, if it’s something urgent, go there to him and you speak with him and he is/he can
see that it’s very urgent.
IF_23_GM3: Face to face.
IF_21_GM3: Meanwhile, if you call them and you say, okay, it’s very urgent, yes, for sure,
I understand. And after he closes the phone, it will pass maybe one week …
IF_23_GM3: Yes, because/
IF_21_GM3: … until he will help you. But if we are in the same place, you can go again to
him and it’s/
IF_23_GM3: Yes. When they close the phone, they think, okay, I’ll do it in a few hours …
IF_22_GM3: (smiling)
IF_23_GM3: … if not, okay. He’s not coming back to me.
IF_21_GM3: It’s not a pressure.
IF_23_GM3: It’s easier not to answer the phone than to avoid somebody on the hallway …
IF_22_GM3: Yes.
IF_23_GM3: … and in the office. Yes.
IF_22_GM3: This is a point that all the three of us agree. (IF_21_GM3, IF_22_GM3 and
IF_23_GM3: focus group interview)
The likelihood of response also seems to be determined by the relationship

between the sender and the recipient. More specifically, the informants explain this
link from both perspectives: first, as a requestor and second, as a recipient. First, one
informant shares her experience that the colleagues, which she personally knows, are
more inclined to response and cooperate with her, while the others are rather not coop-
erating. Second, from the perspective of the recipient, another informant explains,
that the request from a person, which he personally knows, will be preferred over
the other requests from colleagues, which he does not know that well:
Also the ones I don’t know, they more likely don’t do it. But the three, which I know, there
it’s going nicely. The ones I personally know, there it’s going nicely. (IF_5_GM1)
So if I have like 10/10 queries from anonymous person and one from the person, which I
recall I tend to pick this one first, right. (IF_30_GT5)
The non-response in virtual communication is higher, because the urgency to reply

is lower, either because of the missing possibility of meeting face-to-face, or because
the priority to reply seems to be of a lower rank when missing a relationship. In both
situations, the (dis-) connection between the members of a hybrid virtual team seems
to matter for the level of non-response and thus may hamper a smooth cooperation.
5.2.3.5 Intimacy Gap
The missing intimacy is another contextual challenge, which needs to be overcome

to establish a connection between the members of hybrid virtual teams. When not
working at the same location and in the same office, members of teams encounter
difficulties to get a feeling for the current “atmosphere” (Expert_2_VT) at the other
team member’s location. The communication via communication technology across
distance does not ensure the transmission of such environmental or contextual cues.
This bears the risk of either causing a conflict or not noticing an already existing
conflict:
is virtually less impalpable, when those responsible are not constantly in a good contact,
because they don’t have the people on site and not this informal, formal exchange, these
atmospheric, these human than do not feel, yes. And when they don’t gear their attention to
it, to feel it early on […] Because then I can have a feeling for that, can I mitigate it before
it takes off and before the people feel insulted on a level, it is expresses a certain power of
conflict. Thus that is very important. (Expert_2_VT)
During a focus group interview at GlobalMobility, the informants describe, that

the chance to see how a person currently feels and to adopt the way of approaching
this person and maybe even the timing accordingly, is an advantage of collocation.
Unfortunately, such ‘ex-ante verification’ is not possible when communication via
technology, for example prior to picking up the phone or sending out an email request:
IF_22_GM3: a person you can see, you can read its body language, let’s say, or you can
see, he’s busy or he’s sad today or he’s happy. But when you call on the phone, you don’t
know the state of that person.
IF_23_GM3: Mhm, the state of mind. (IF_22_GM3 and IF_23_GM3: focus group interview)
Consistently, GlobalTech informants told me, that the current situation of the
interaction partner is hard to determine, when being remote and only collaborating
via communication technology. Thus, they worry that it is difficult to adopt the
communication accord to the other’s current state of mood due to such an intimacy
gap:
In the office you see, whether somebody is tensed up. But virtually, I just throw over an email
and ask, do, say. (IF_27_GT4)
Moreover, due to the intimacy gap it is more difficult to establish such an intimate
connection with the virtual interaction partner in order to sufficiently capture when
another team members is emotionally struggling:
And he can feel the pain, being here not remotely. Remote managers need to work additionally
on the connections, additionally on the emotion side and additionally to become connected
to your peers. Just to ask: How is Joana doing? Is she struggling with something and she is
not telling me that because she is far away, maybe the problem was two or three days back
and now she has calmed down. So you need to comment more frequently if you both are
remote. But this emotional. (IF_31_GT5)
5.2.3.6 Less Focus on Interaction Partner Due to Multitasking
It is common for collaboration through communication technology, that people do

multitasking instead of focusing exclusively on the communication with the inter-
action partner. This can create problems due to a poorer quality of exchange and
cooperation. An expert elaborates, that most of the time the interaction partners
are not capable of actually doing multi-tasking, wherefore it is task-switching. This
implicates, that during the virtual communication the parties switch from communi-
cation with each other to another task. Such behavior is more likely a phenomenon
of communicating across distance and through communication technology, because
when communicating face-to-face the interaction is likely to be more focused and
exclusive:
And it requires an understanding, that people/multitasking is something, that doesn’t exist
for most people. We task-switching, that is what we do. So that/but with virtual teams or
trainings more than ninety per cent of people do multitasking. That means, they are in a
meeting, but they do/do Chat or so and so and so. That is normal. And what we normally
do, that we don’t do in face-to-face . […] But mostly offline we don’t do it. But online yes.
We do that. On the phone, we do it. That people are not fully immersed. (Expert_3_VT)
At GlobalTech, the informants describe that it is common to do multiple things

at the same time, for example communicating through different media channels in
parallel. On one side, the informant describes such communication behavior as a
skill required in their business environment. But on the other side, he also admits
that the less focused one is on a single virtual communication, the poorer will be the
quality of each individual communication:
Also could be, that I make a telephone call with the one and the other I chat, so also multi-
channel. So is, all media are used. Few face-to-face. A lot via media. (IW: And multichannel,
mean what with?) I do different things at the same time. With one I chat, with the other I have
a phone call at the same time. With another I do video, with another I chat or write emails.
You always have that role multitasking, that you communicate with multiple people at the
same time. (IW: With multiple people on different channels?) Correct, correct. (IW: And why
you do that?) Time pressure, speed […] but this is the skill to communicate with multiple
people at the same time. (IW: is that desirable?) No, not desirable, the quality suffers. The
less focus you have, the less quality you have in the individual conversations. (IF_26_GT3)
As multi-tasking seems to be a common behavior pattern when communication

across distance through communication technology, another informant describes his
latent uncertainty, that the interaction partner is not fully paying attention:
And when I only have it via phone, it simply needs more time, because I might be uncertain,
does the actually listen to me? (IF_24_GT1)
The common behavior of multitasking during the collaboration through commu-

nication technology, may lead to less focus on the individual and poorer quality of
interaction, resulting in a disconnection between the interaction partners in hybrid
virtual teams.
5.3 Context of Shared Services Organizations
The individuals and teams operating within Shared Services Organizations likely
experience the contextual challenge of ‘discontinuity through temporality of team
composition’. The empirical findings are informed by the theory-based sensitizing
concept of the contextual challenge relate to temporality, which may make the coop-
eration among the members of the Shared Service teams more difficult and have been
specified and problematized through the insights of the field research. I will (1) out-
line in what way the sensitizing concept of the contextual challenge of temporality
and the empirically-driven contextual challenge of ‘discontinuity through temporal-
ity of team composition’ and its respective expressions of the contextual challenges
are interrelated with each other. Afterwards, I provide more details about it by (2)
outlining the empirical findings related to the contextual challenge of ‘discontinuity
through temporality of team composition’.
5.3.1 Introduction to the Expressions of Contextual

Challenges in Shared Services Organizations
The empirical study presented in this book helps to gain a better understanding
of how individuals within Shared Services Organizations experience the contextual
challenge of ‘temporality of team composition’ in their day-to-day teamwork. As
sensitizing concepts can perfectly function as insight-leading concepts and are com-
monly deployed with the aim to be bolstered with specific content through empirical
research (Strübing 2004: 30; Kruse 2014: 112), the findings related to the ‘dis-
continuity through temporality of team composition’ are inspired by my theoretical
sensitivity related to the contextual challenges of temporality. It is also an appropriate
category to subsume three different expressions of contextual challenges, which will
be presented in the following sections of this chapter. Thereby, the explanations and
details rest upon my interviews with informants in Shared Services Organizations as
well as the expert interviews, which I conducted.
5.3.2 Discontinuity Through Temporality of Team

Composition
The more temporal the composition of a team, the more likely the individual members
of the team encounter discontinuities in their cooperative efforts. The field research
allowed me to identified three expressions of contextual challenges, which may
originate from the temporal composition of Shared Services teams: (1) uncertainty
due to changing organizational structure, (2) looming threat of future layoffs and
(3) interaction with new colleagues due to high turnover rates. Each of them may
cause a discontinuity of teamwork, especially as these teams are set up as permanent
teams. Thus, the pre-specified time horizon of the teams is permanent, but in reality
they encounter constant changes and a high degree of fluidity in membership. The
emerging temporality and undetermined collaboration with fellow members of the
hybrid virtual team may influence the cooperation within the teams, because of the
uncertainty regarding a shared future.
5.3.2.1 Uncertainty Due to Changing Organizational Structure
The restructuring of the support function through the consolidation of previously

decentralized activities sets the ground for the implementation of the Shared Ser-
vices Organization. Thereby, restructuring is an inherent and continuous process for
Shared Services Organizations. The re-organization of work and processes can lead
to discontinuities in the cooperative effort of the organization as a whole. One of
the experts for Shared Services highlights, that companies and their Shared Services
Organizations find themselves in a continuous development process. Consequently,
restructuring and changes are the ‘new normal’ and support functions such as Finance
or Human Resources are not immune to such constant adaptation and optimization:
That there is never – the implementation of Shared Service Centers is there and therewith the
topic is closed. But rather in the local organization as well as in the centralized organization
a continuous process happens in order to- to move on in line with the market. Because the
company moves on as well. New products. New customer. Are there new services required in
which market you are operating. Thus, it is quite natural that even in the traditional processes
such as Finance or Human Resources, you have to constantly optimize. (Expert_8_SSO)
One GlobalMobility informant depicts, that GlobalMobility has recently launched

a program to increase the company’s operating efficiency. The continuous restruc-
turings and organizational changes create a high level of uncertainty for her. The
perceived permanency of change makes her uncertain what to expect from the future
and she is uncertain whether her job is secure in the future:
a success-project, that we operate in the black in 2017. That effects also the GlobalMobility
location in Germany (GM1), even if the site is not completely shut down. Whether company
shares are sold, are all open questions. But (unv.) then you don’t know, what happens with us,
because that (unv.) continuously goes on, whether it is downsized and other constellations
are possible. And that I mean with restructurings. Of course (unv.) public administration,
5.3 Context of Shared Services Organizations 133
that you know: okay, if you don’t steal a golden spoon, then the job is secure for the next 30
years. But this is not the case for us. And (unv.) it happens permanently and this is what I
mean with that. (IF_6_GM1)
One GlobalTech informant explains, that she is disappointed that GlobalTech is not
so much caring about her and her colleagues anymore, but rather focusing on the needs
of the stakeholders. Therefore, she feels like being “just a number” (IF_25_GT2),
because she has the feeling that the organization shifts the work wherever it may
be the cheapest. As a consequence, she becomes uncertain how important she as an
individual human being still is in the eyes of her employer:
And now they start realizing, yes, they are just numbers. Sorry to say it like that. But, yes.
Yes. So, yes. Yes. No, it’s really/again, it’s for the shareholders. So if it/if we can do the same
kind of job cheaper, we gonna go cheaper somewhere else. And we don’t really care about
the people, right. But then not even caring about the people. (IF_25_GT2)
While I was conducting the field research at GlobalMobility and at GlobalTech,

both companies announced major restructurings to the general public. In both cases
the company’s reasoning was the need to adapt their structure to the changes business
landscape. At GlobalMobility, they are planning to offshore whole production lines
from Europe to low-cost countries in Asia, which makes entire core processes and
the respective employees in Europe obsolete. Similarly, in order to keep the pace of
the rapidly changing information technology sector, GlobalTech announced a change
of emphasis of their product portfolio, which results in redundant employees at one
side, while hiring new employees somewhere else. Yet, in total it sums up to be
a downsizing as well. These announcements also showcase that restructuring and
changes are the ‘new normal’ and hence the future for the individual employees is
as uncertain as never before.
5.3.2.2 Looming Threat of Future Layoffs
Layoffs are characteristic for the Shared Services context, because of the manage-
ment’s strive for cost reductions. The implementation of the Shared Services Orga-
nization typically includes the layoffs of employees, as the employees in the decen-
tralized locations are made redundant once their work has been centralized. But also
for the people staying in the decentralized locations, the so-called ‘retained organiza-
tion’, a latent threat of layoffs in the future exists. More precisely, one of the Shared
Services experts explains, that the number of employees in the retained organization
is continuously reduced:
Yes, it used to be – I would say five years ago it was 50% of the original (the original number of
employees). Now we have maybe reached 30%. It is successively reduced. (Expert_8_SSO)
At the same time, one of the Shared Services experts assumes, that the employees
of the Shared Services Organization envisage the continuous process of shifting work
from the high-wage countries into the central locations:
Generally the employees in the Retained Organization understand, why the relocation hap-
pens. They can comprehend. They are not so naïve. It is not that they live in a fairyland.
(Expert_10_SSO)
Yet, in contrast to the expert’s assumption, the informants of GlobalMobility give

account to the fact that they were not anticipating a layoff and that is has been a
momentous experience for them. One informant describes the layoff as “a kick in
the pants” (IF_6_GM1). Another informant emphasizes that the layoffs have been
very impactful for her. She explains, that the layoff is looming, something “that is
always hovering over us” (IF_8_GM2). Thus, the past and the future layoffs give
her the feeling that the management “the work, which is done, is not appreciated”
(IF_8_GM2). Then, she conveys that the layoffs have a formative influence on her
and that everyone has developed a different coping strategy. She, for example, is now
keeping her feelings to herself and is less open in the interaction to be less vulnerable
at work:
it had a personal effect on everybody in different direction. So from profound disappointment
to self-protection and as such carry on or surrender. So as such I think to myself, everyone
who has effected, either he is made redundant or was allowed to stay, it gave a personal
stamp for everyone […] everyone has gone through a development, undergoing a personality
development in positive as well as in the negative sense […] as such when you used to be
relatively open, communicated a lot with various people or were outspoken etc., now you
withdraw more maybe. One says: “No, I better keep my mouth shut, to have one’s own
thoughts on the matter. But through that I protect myself and my feeling or my feelings as
such.” And because of that one appears to be cold with others. That may be, but I will not
preclude for myself that seems to be cold and arrogant, even though one is actually not. But
it is rather a protection, which one has build up for oneself, to not become exasperated with
it. (IF_8_GM2)
One informant from GlobalTech shares her observation that due to the looming
threat of future layoffs, she and her colleagues are changing their behavior at work.
For example, she realizes that everyone is less inclined to step up, put in extra effort
or take over responsibility for the sake of GlobalTech. The feeling, that the company
might ‘get rid of her’ some day, has made most of them more risk-averse in their
day-to-day activities:
I mean, of course, then you don’t invest yourself so much into the company. Why should
you, right? Because the company will get rid of you, when you/you know, when you are not
needed. So, yes. And I feel it, I mean, working with other teams, I feel, that nobody is actually
owning the processes or the issues and say, okay, yes, oh, yes, we have an issue, let’s work
on it and I take the responsibility. I take the responsibility and if I make a mistake, I make a
mistake, too bad, right. But I feel/you know, I send this email, I say, it’s my decision and I’ll
take it. You don’t have that anymore, because nobody wants to take any risk. (IF_25_GT2)
At the central hub in Eastern Europe one informant explains, that she has experi-
enced that some of her local colleagues from the retained organization in the ‘high-
wage countries’ are reluctant to hand over any work to her. She assumes, that they
are afraid that they will loose their job in the near future, because of people like her
in the central location:
for example in Finland, there is somebody who does not like to hand over, because the people
are afraid from time to time that they will lose their job […] And then from time to time are
afraid, that we want to take something from them […] ‘Yes, but I still have to do that’ Or
they are afraid that they will lose their job. (IF_28_GT5)
The experience of a layoff, combined with the looming threat of a future layoff,
is very impactful for the day-to-day behavior at work. This may likely have an
effect on the cooperation between the decentralized and centralized employees of
the Shared Services Organization, because the individuals are withdrawing back into
themselves.
5.3.2.3 Interaction with New Colleagues (Labour Turnover)
A high labor turnover of the employees at the Eastern European locations is another
characteristic of many Shared Services teams. Therewith, the duration of team mem-
bership in Shared Services teams changes from permanent to dynamic or even uncer-
tain. Such constant changes in team composition bear the risk of causing discontinu-
ities in teamwork. This means, that with team members leaving, new members need
to be integrated into the team and consequently, the ones staying need to accustom to
new colleagues on a regular basis. This may negatively affect the cooperative efforts.
I will (1) depict the reasons for the high labor turnover in Shared Services teams
and (2) display the (negative) effects of such fluctuation for the team’s cooperative
efforts. Thereby, I will problematize the necessity of the team members staying to
constantly re-adapt their interaction behavior to new colleagues.
Reasons for labor turnover. The Shared Services experts unanimously explain
that high turnover rates are a characteristic feature for Shared Services Organizations,
especially for the locations in Eastern Europe:
Yes, there I’m sorry to say, that by now this is characteristic. That is not far away from
the average. That is unfortunately the case. In our study we have surveyed the average and
calculated based upon the information. For Eastern Europe the fluctuation is around 17 per
cent. (Expert_6_SSO)
the labor turnover in a SSC is proven to be substantially higher. (Expert_8_SSO)
One informant from the retained organization of GlobalMobility shares his obser-
vation, that his employer is in a fierce competition with other companies to find skilled
employees to work in Shared Service Centers and then to retain them:
Especially when there are other companies at the Eastern European location (GM3) starting
their SSC and need staff as well, for sure the pressure increases. (IF_4_GM1)
The same applies for GlobalTech, as an informant explains that there are many job
opportunities available for people to work in Shared Services, making it attractive to
move jobs regularly:
In Poland the labor market for such kind of jobs looks a little different. You can change the
job every two or three years, because you want to get another position or a different salary
[…] there have been ten different companies which would have employed me. (IF_28_GT5)
Numerous GlobalTech informants at the Eastern European location admit that

changing jobs is quite common for them, because they regularly want to have
the chance to explore and accomplish new things. Therefore, they cannot imagine
working in the same job for many years:
Because it is a/I don’t know, yes the people want to new challenges from time to time. If you
know that you will do the same every day. (IF_28_GT5)
doing the same thing for ages. […] (laughing) Yes, like I would die. (IF_29_GT5)
Interestingly, a Shared Services expert highlights, that a certain level of labor turn
over can be beneficial and even intended by management, noting that a turnover rate
from up to 15% is acceptable and “healthy” for the Shared Services Organization.
Only turnover rates of around 30% may be “unhealthy” (Expert_10_SSO), because
such rates are too high to successfully conserve the knowledge of the employees
leaving:
It gets unhealthy, when it is in the area of 30, 35 per cent, because then the knowledge can’t be
conserved eventually and simply the loss of knowledge and the ramp-up inefficiencies are so
high, that it leads to process uncertainty and process instabilities. And the cost benefit, to get
in new young people, is also, let’s say, after one/after two years the cost benefit is not so high.
Or conversely spoken, the cost disadvantage is also not so high when somebody is there for
two years. For that it wouldn’t need for a new colleague. Accordingly, a fluctuation rate of 30
per cent, 35 per cent and higher is significantly disadvantageous. […] fluctuation of ten, 15
per cent is certainly in the area of what is reasonable and what is healthy. (Expert_10_SSO)
Constantly adapting to new interaction partner hampers cooperative efforts.

The high labor turnover of the hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations
makes the interaction between the different members of the team uncertain and
potentially short-termed. Yet, this temporality is not defined ex ante as the teams are
supposed to be permanent teams. Consequently, the team members face problems of
temporality in their day-to-day interaction with each other. Thereby, emerging prob-
lems for cooperation can be of operational and relational nature. The Shared Services
experts acknowledge, that the fluctuation may cause problems for the cooperative
efforts of the Shared Services team. Especially from an operational viewpoint, one
of the experts sees the risk that the stability and continuity of the work is jeopardized.
Therefore, he comes to the conclusion that a high fluctuation is counterproductive:
And particularly in the Service Centre, where you need a certain stability, stability and conti-
nuity, a high fluctuation is of course very counterproductive for the aspiration of operational
excellence. (Expert_7_SSO)
One of the GlobalMobility informants assesses the fluctuation at the Eastern

European site as problematic, because the knowledge is constantly lost:
But well with every handover it is lost again, than it is gone again. (IF_3_GM1)
Another member of the decentralized organization of GlobalMobility expresses

her trouble with the high fluctuation rate at the Eastern European location. She is
annoyed that the entire personnel is changing every two years and consequently, that
she has to start all over again:
What of course is annoying is that mostly, you have to start from the premise that, every two
years the entire personnel is changing. That is inconvenient again […] that is why you start
all over again. (IF_8_GM2)
Moreover, another informant specifies that fluctuation causes a discontinuity on

two levels: first, for the relationship with the fellow team members and second for
the task execution. Specifically, he first comments on the need to familiarize with
a new colleague anew every few years. Second, on the work level, mostly the new
team member does not have the same level of knowledge and skills as the person
being replaced, wherefore for example the successful task completion may be risk:
But in general it complicates the whole situation, because you so to say identify with certain
business partner […] And that complicates the whole thing, when you have to accustom to
a new person over and over […] Then you start all over again, at the point, also personally
now. And to ignore the, let’s say, loses of Chinese whispers (‘Stille Post’), which occur
because of the lack of missing or insufficient transfer. So, that are the two points A accustom
to new person and that the new person also has the tricks and ruses and has the knowledge,
what the previous person had, that is difficult. (IF_2_GM1)
In addition, one of his colleagues at the same location describes, that the fluctu-
ation complicates the cooperation in the team, because it takes time to establish a
relationship with the new team members. Besides the relationship building, it also
takes time to figure out the capabilities, speed and reliability of the new joiner. Yet,
this assessment is necessary in order to ease the cooperation:
(Fluctuation) complicates the cooperation […] simply because every time you have to get
to know somebody new and it takes a while, to assess that person, to pin down, the define
the relationship with the new employee. Means, one has to again and again figure out how
somebody is, how much background knowledge does he have, how reliable it he? How fast
is he? And that you need to find out every time. When they are there for a longer time, you
don’t need to think about that anymore, but instead you can that what has been learnt, easily
expect and adapt your requests, your problems accordingly or problem solution ideas etc.
transmit smoother. (IF_4_GM1)
From the opposite perspective, an informant from the Eastern European site
expresses her understanding, that the high turnover rate may be unpleasant for her
colleagues in Germany. As a consequence, she speculates that the colleagues in Ger-
many may invest less in the relationship with the new joiners in the future, because
of the temporality of collaboration:
they care more or less about the person, because/But they don’t have anything to do with/with
the one of here is leaving or not. Because maybe they regret, oh, she left, she was/I had a
good communication with that person and I’m sorry that she left. (IF_14_GM3)
During a group interview at one of the German locations, two informants pro-
vide hunches for the fact that the fluctuation may make the relationship with their
colleagues more temporal and less forward-looking:
IF_2_GM1: I think, at one stage he will be ready and then he’s gone
IF_1_GM1: I think so too. (IF_2_GM1 and IF_1_GM1: focus group interview)
Another informant also states that the fluctuation may be unpleasant for the Ger-
man part of the team, because they have to explain the same things over and over
again with every new joiner at the Eastern European location:
maybe they will explain the same thing (smiling) over and over again, because maybe the
new one/When you are a new employee, you need a lot of new information and it takes time
until you (assimilate) all the information and maybe you ask the same thing two or three
times. (IF_14_GM3)
Moreover, one informant admits, that some of the knowledge is certainly gone
when people leave GlobalMobility. Thus, the loss of knowledge may cause a dis-
continuity in the task completion and teamwork. He feels sorry for the colleagues in
Germany, who have to support the same learning process of every new joiner all the
time:
And if you are leaving so often, so the knowledge sometimes just/it’s going away. So someone
new is coming, she doesn’t know so good the process, again he or she goes to the local team
and asks the same question than the other one. Sometimes I think it’s frustrating for them
to/to/to answer to the same questions and/and so. (IF_12_GM3)
At GlobalTech, one informant shares his experience that dealing with new join-
ers is different than with more senior colleagues, because the senior ones have the
knowledge to complete their tasks on their own. In contrast, the new joiners will
likely need more assistance, so that the informant has to invest more time with them.
In addition, he also trusts the new joiners less, that they will successfully manage
what is expected from them:
it means, that the person knows, what he is doing, right. Because sometimes you/I mean,
there is a big difference between cooperate with the new joiners and with the people, who
worked for some time already. (..) It dep/Yes, so for instance, if you are telling the person
to do A and B (..) and you know, that he works with us for five, ten or two years already, so
you can assume, that he knows, what’s/what needs to be done, right. So you can just tell him
that, please, do it. And on the other, if you have like the new joiner and you tell him to do it,
probably he will go back to you with a couple of questions about how to do it, where to do
it, when to do it, etcetera, etcetera. So you need to spend more time. And/(..) Yes, it means,
you/the trust is limited, right. (IF_30_GT5)
One of the GlobalTech business partner in Switzerland explains, that the fluctua-
tion causes a cooperation problem, because the temporality of cooperation eliminates
the chance to establish a long-term relationship with other members of the team. She
shares a respective communication she had the day before the interview, when one of
her colleagues, informed her that he will be moving. She is sad, because the shared
experiences and the knowledge they have developed together will evaporate:
you would never build a long term relationship, if people keep moving, you know, for one/you
know, every year or every second year. We have that in Romania with Senior Accountant.
So not with Tax, but Senior Accountant, that I’m working closely with. […] I worked quite a
lot with a/with a guy on Germany project, audits and stuff like that. And I was like, ah, yes,
he/you know, he is good, he starts understanding, I’m happy and everything. And yesterday
he sent an email, oh, I’m not the Senior Accountant for this country anymore. And I’m like,
oh, you are moving? Yes, I’m moving in Sales Finance. So then I won’t have any contact
anymore with him. And I’m like, (sighing) oh, no, you know. (laughing) I have to start all over
again. And for me it was only now after/he has been with two years, because GlobalTech is
so complex, that it was really, you know, running and I was/I built this trust with him and I
knew, you know, that I could actually call him and vice versa. So, yes, I mean, if you have a
big turnover, you will never build that. (IF_25_GT2)
One of her colleagues in the Eastern European location has a similar story to tell.
She is also of the opinion, that the fluctuation is causing discontinuities in teamwork,
on the relational as well as the operational level:
we have been a team of 18 people, who have worked together with Germany. We were divided
into Administration, Personal Development and Recruitment […] in the second month two
people left. And the whole time there was somebody – a new person and somebody left.
And there, when you then know, three or four times per annum the situation repeats, that
you explain someone from the beginning, then it is more difficult, to reach trust again, from
another person. Yes, then it goes: Yes okay, I invest my time, I explain it to you again. I take
two or three hours of my time and after four month the person is gone again. That can be
a little problematic […] Whether they can really trust us, that the work is done smoothly. If
for example – you have told something to a new person and you don’t know has he saved
it somewhere, if they share the knowledge with other people. And you don’t know, whether
you need to start from the beginning. (IF_28_GT5)
The high turnover rate in Shared Services teams changes the duration of team
membership from permanent to dynamic or even short-termed. In consequence, the
team members encounter discontinuities in their teamwork on two levels: first, the
relationships between the individual team members need to be newly developed and
with every colleague leaving, a new one is joining and the ones staying need to re-
adapt and accustom anew with the new interaction partner. Second, the cooperative
efforts for task completion are lacking stability and continuity, because experience
and knowledge may be lost when somebody leaves.
References
Kruse, J. (2014). Qualitative interviewforschung. Beltz Juventa: Ein integrativer Ansatz.

Strübing, J. (2004). Grounded theory. Zur sozialtheoretischen und epistemologischen Fundierung
des Verfahrens der empirischen begründeten Theoriebildung. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Chapter 6
Findings: Practices to Foster Cooperation
The study presented in this book provides empirical insights to the research question
about how members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations use
identification, trust and peer monitoring to overcome the cooperation problem. Such
a cooperation problem likely occurs as a result of the contextual challenges they
are experiencing. During the interviews the interviewees described how they use
identification, trust and peer monitoring to foster cooperation in such a challenging
context. Based upon those descriptions, I identified twenty-two different practices
to foster cooperation. Thus, I will (1) give an overview of the findings related to the
three strategies, which are linked to the sensitizing concepts of solutions to foster
cooperation. Afterwards, I provide more details about the strategy of (2) identity con-
structing, which comprises four different practices to foster cooperation; (3) trusting,
which comprises fourteen different practices and lastly (4) virtual peer monitoring,
which comprises four different practices used by members of hybrid virtual teams
in Shared Services Organizations to overcome the cooperation problem.
6.1 Overview: Data Structure of Practices
The informants of the study presented in this book deploy a variety of practices to
overcome the cooperation problem within their hybrid virtual team in the Shared
Services Organization. I refer to the individual activities performed by the infor-
mants as ‘practices’ to highlight the process perspective of how each of them is
experiencing and acting out different ways to foster their cooperation. I subsume
those practices in three different strategies, which are informed by the sensitizing
concepts of identification, trust and peer monitoring. To stress the processuality of
the practices and strategies as well as the fact that they are actively pursued by the
informants, the strategies for instance are formulated as (1) identity constructing, (2)
individual and co-created trusting and (3) virtual peer monitoring. The overall data
structure is summarized in the following table (see Table 6.1).

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34300-2_6
142 6 Findings: Practices to Foster Cooperation
Table 6.1 Data structure of practices to foster cooperation

Dimension = Strategies Second-order themes (categories)a First-order concepts (codes)a =
Practices
Identity constructing (see Sect. 6.2) Relationship-related identity (see • Fostering informal virtual
Sect. 6.2.1) communication
• Sharing visual cues to feel
connected
Task-related identity (see • Determining common goals
Sect. 6.2.2) • Establishing a common work ethic
Trusting (see Sect. 6.3) Checking as an active trust • Profiling the potential trustee
enablement (see Sect. 6.3.2) • Making use of third party
references
• Checking for value (in-)
congruence
Signalizing trustworthiness (see • Signalizing ability
Sect. 6.3.3) • Signalizing benevolence
• Signalizing integrity
Co-creating ability-based trust (see • Building knowledge together
Sect. 6.3.4) • Communicating results of
self-checks
Co-creating benevolence-based • Sharing virtual social recognition
trust (see Sect. 6.3.5) • Showing emotional credibility
Co-creating integrity-based trust • Establishing a joint
(see Sect. 6.3.6) understanding of reliability
• Admitting and forgiving mistakes
• Maintaining confidentiality
• Agreeing on an appropriate level
of gossip
Virtual peer monitoring (see Computer-aided peer monitoring • Using synchronous media (for
Sect. 6.4) (see Sect. 6.4.1) natural symbol sets and high
transmission velocity)
• Using asynchronous media (for
reprocess ability)
Establishing a positive monitoring • Having the right intentions
culture (see Sect. 6.4.2) (need-based)
• Creating a culture for monitoring
and feedback

a Inductively derived categories and codes in italic
6.2 Strategy of Identity Constructing
A shared identity provides an important basis for enabling cooperation. Identity

constructing is a strategy of members belonging to hybrid virtual teams in Shared
Services Organizations to foster cooperation. In sum, based upon the informant’s
explanations, I identified four different practices, which positively influence the
development of a shared identity and they can be categorized into (1) relationship-
related identity and (2) task-related identity. I subsumed all of them under the strategy
of identity constructing to foster cooperation.
6.2 Strategy of Identity Constructing 143
6.2.1 Relationship-Related Identity
The category relationship-related identity comprises two practices of identity con-

structing, which may help to feel related, even across geographical distance: (1)
informal communication; and (2), sharing visual cues to feel connected, which are
empirically introduced hereafter. Both practices include the active exchange of non-
task related information to establish a shared experience between the individuals in
a team. To promote the sharing of experiences is key for identity constructing in
hybrid virtual teams, where such exchange does not occur purely by chance.
6.2.1.1 Fostering Informal Virtual Communication
Multiple informants outline the importance of reserving time for informal commu-
nication in a virtual meeting and using the right media, to achieve closeness at a
distance. One expert exemplarily outlines that he tries to achieve a teamspirit in
geographically dispersed teams interacting through communication technology by
using synchronous media and actively spending time for speaking about informal
information. Examples for such informal information could be company rumors or
other hot topics, which many team members might be interested in:
to develop a teamspirit […] Yes, so to say a part of virtual closeness is to use the right media
for the right purpose […] if during a synchronous meeting you do virtual coffee breaks,
where you for example talk about rumors, which are currently spreading in the company,
where you talk about hot topics, which are not going into the protocol and this in the first
ten minutes of a synchronous telephone conference. (Expert_4_VT)
Similarly, another expert recommends to a virtual coffee together while being

synchronously connected through communication technology to talk about trivial
matters like the weather. Such informal communication is important for relationship
building in hybrid virtual teams:
that we always use in our interventions, virtual coffee drinking, and this virtual coffee
drinking means, now we define a time where we basically only ask how is the weather, do
you have wind, I have seen that in Germany there have been storms, have you been there,
yes, now, that is somewhere else, such whatever. Trivial, yet what is very important for the
relationship. (Expert_2_VT)
Besides the experts, the informants also stress, that to have a virtual coffee break
together is very important for building a relationship across distance. This means
drinking a cup of coffee together while being on the phone or during the video con-
ference and spend this time for speaking about personal or informal information. One
GlobalTech informant even attributes an accelerating function for social bonding to
the informal communication, for example through having a “Video-coffee” together:
The social bonding does not happen during the conversation, but rather in the evening in the
bar or during lunch […] That is a little more difficult through video […] On the other side,
we also do a video-coffee from time to time, where everyone takes a coffee and only talks
informally and hold a cup of coffee in the hand. […] to simply share a story about true-life.
That we also do. Like that you can speed up the social bonding. (IF_26_GT3)
Moreover, it is perceived to be of prime importance that the team members

actively reserve a time slot for their informal virtual communication. This is impor-
tant, because meeting someone spontaneous and informally on the hallway is not
immanent in virtual collaborations (see Sect. 5.2.2.3):
so to make sure to also think of oneself, okay, now is a defined time, that you need to make
explicit with virtual media, because it is not immanent, that you meet each other in the
hallway, what kind of time of the qualitative time you spend together. (Expert_2_VT)
One informant at GlobalTech similarly elucidates that it is about actively ‘invest-

ing in informal communication’ to set the ground for a virtual collaboration. He
describes that one has to spend time for informal communication via telephone or
in video conferences. Furthermore, it is necessary that both parties perceive it as a
dialogue and not as a monologue in order to be beneficial for relationship building:
That, for instance, you don’t cut the call immediately, right. So you are willing to hear it. So
for instance, if they start to sharing with you some stuff, you don’t say, okay, cool, I’m super
busy, let’s call another time. And you just spend your time to listen to them. And this is how
they probably/and also respond/you do respond to it, right. You need to make a dialogue. It’s
not a monologue. Otherwise it won’t work. So it/this is always a dialogue. And you need to
spend time. (IF_30_GT5)
At GlobalMobility, the informants stress that the use of the right media is important
for the kind of communication they want to foster. For instance, one informant
describes that she uses synchronous media like the phone or the chat for relationship-
related communication, for example asking about the last holiday. In contrast, she
uses asynchronous media like emails for task-related communication:
In emails not quite, but on the phone, yes. (laughing) I’ve asking her, if she/for example if she
went on holiday in France and I asked how was your holiday and stuff like that. We speak
on personal stuff, but on the phone or on chat. On email it’s only, when I need something
like backup documentation or/on chat and on the telephone we speak. (IF_14_GM3)
6.2.1.2 Sharing Visual Cues to Feel Connected
Sharing visual cues is perceived as beneficial for establishing a relationship-related

identity, because it helps to feel connected. Thereby, sharing visual cues can range
from sending pictures via email (GlobalMobility) to synchronous video phone calls
(GlobalTech). One expert shares his experience of a ‘simulated collocation’ of an
Italian-German team he works with. This hybrid virtual team has a permanent video
connection with two screens at both locations of the team. Thus, there is no need to
first establish a connection via phone or video conference, as the team members can
ask each other instantaneously for help, regardless of their location:
And they have something interesting, they have an all-time virtual connection between Ger-
many and Italy […] Video conference. But it is always on. So a team is in Germany, a team
is in Italy. There is a screen or so in both countries. The screens are always on and when I
have a question, I can simply go to the camera and say, hello Klaus. Mario1 here from/I need
help with so and so customer or so. And then Klaus comes from and says, let’s talk together
and then, go back to work. (Expert_3_VT)
The informants at GlobalMobility are not equipped with advanced media tech-
nology. They are satisfied with seeing pictures of their hybrid virtual teammates in
their email program. Even with these small pictures of only some of their dispersed
colleagues, they perceive it as an added value for their relationship:
For me, personally, it makes a difference. It’s quite a surprise that, when I started my Outlook
application the first time, I can see some pictures. It’s really nice to know also how the person
you talk with looks. I don’t know, why. (smiling) That’s okay. But personally I feel that it’s
added value (..) It really helps. And the same information I have from my team. They are
really enthusiastic about the fact that they can see persons. (IF_16_GM3)
In contrast, GlobalTech team members have the chance to use video phone calls
as a standard media for their communication within their hybrid virtual team. One
informant exemplarily outlines, that the exchange of visual cues during the syn-
chronous video phone calls helps to establish rapport and to feel connected even
across distance:
how they want so show their respect or they want to, I don’t know, build a connection, right,
with the other people. Because it’s always bet/I mean, we can admit, like that head-to-head,
right, so we use the video conference. So it helps to build the rapport, the connection. […]
It’s/probably it’s for psychological reasons, right, because you see the face, so you have the
feeling. (IF_30_GT5)
Multiple informants at GlobalTech mention, that the possibility to share visual

cues is very beneficial to socialize and establish a connection with the interaction
partner at the other location. To see the facial expressions and reactions feels more
comfortable during the communication. Moreover, to be familiar with the face of a
person helps to be perceived as a real person:
I also prefer to see the people. Because then you have the – you see the reactions to something,
the facial expression and the gestures. And for me it is easier and a little more comfortable,
when I see the other person, when I talk with them […] And I would say, it helps me, when
I see the people. And I think, it is also easier to ask somebody: Yes, how are you etc. and to
socialize with the other person […] I would say, the majority is doing it […] I know some
people from the face. And for them it was also easier to think; there is a person in Poland
[…] Somehow you think the whole time – I have a face here in Poland, I am a real person
here. (IF_28_GT5)
When both parties have the camera turned on, both have access to supporting cues
besides audio. These facial expressions can flank what is said. Hence, the norm in
GlobalTech is to have the video camera always turned on during a phone call:
1 Note: Both names are pseudonyms, which were introduced by the interviewee.
that it is a little better when you see each other. And when the people call you, than it is also
– you know, for the communication it is a question, when you see another person. And since
that moment I have my camera on all the time. (IF_28_GT5)
In addition, another informant associates to have the camera turned on as a sign

of respect. He stresses that it is a “sensitive thing” (IF_30_GT5) to not comply. Non-
compliance might hamper the development of a joint relationship. As he further
explains, the general norm is to have the camera always turned on, but nevertheless it
is often the person calling, who determines how the interaction partner shall behave
regarding its camera:
this is the way to show the respect and to build the better contact, because you see the person,
right. […] Because you can see someone else’s face and expressions. I mean, I would say, that
it’s rude, when one person has the camera on and the second person doesn’t, right. […] and
someone is calling you with the camera on, it’s/it’s kind of a/It’s a sensitive thing. I mean,
you should turn your camera also, right, because this person expects that you will show
yourself, because he shows himself. […] Because I mean, we assume that camera should be
on and this is the general assumption […] there was a call and, I mean, five persons was
on, right. And I think, that four of them had the camera on and one/one had the camera
off. And they asked him, why your camera is off, right. So apparently for some people in/it’s
important, right. […] And I keep my camera on during the call. […] Because I assume that
this is the way, how we can move faster. (IF_30_GT5)
Moreover, an informant from GlobalTech mentions, that it is also possible to

share pictures, for example from the family, via chat or email, in order to establish a
personal relationship:
I’ve done that and how is your family and blablabla. So that’s/yes, it’s a lot more personal
items. Yes. And then they share pictures and this kind of thing […] they will share pictures
of their family and the/it’s very funny. (IF_25_GT3)
Similarly, at GlobalMobility, one of the informants, who has recently become

grandpa tells that he has shared some baby pictures with the dispersed colleagues
via email:
I have send them a couple of pictures of my granddaughter […] the information got there,
that I have become grandpa. And then I have also send some pictures. With size and weight
so to say. (IF_2_GM1)
Moreover, another informant tells, that she receives organizational charts from her
dispersed team, which include small pictures of the colleagues. She finds it helpful
to connect a little better:
You maybe get an organizational chart, with the names written in it. Sometimes, there are
pictures next to it. It is maybe also quite cute, that one then says, because you can do
matching. (IF_1_GM1)
6.2.2 Task-Related Identity
The members of a hybrid virtual team can construct a shared identity based on the
experience of how they handle the team tasks together. Thereby, the informants pro-
vide hunches for the category of task-related identity, which comprises two practices
related to the strategy of identity constructing: (1) determining common goals and
(2) establishing common work ethics.
6.2.2.1 Determining Common Goals
To jointly determine common goals as a practice for constructing a common task-

related identity is described several times during the interviews. The determination
of common goals is advisable for all kind of teamwork. However, particularly for
the virtual context, the informants perceive common goals as fundamental for a
common team identity. Two experts outline the importance of common goals for
identity constructing and achieving a feeling of togetherness:
Is it a goal, which really everyone finds important and which all find interesting, where you
like to contribute? And what does that goal mean for the company? And that/I think, very,
very much of the team identity roots from the good and collective agreement of a goal, what
is valuable for everyone and benefits everyone, yes. So, then you can also give the whole
thing a name, we are the team, that, yes, because this/such identity construction, it matters
a lot. (Expert_5_VT)
And the story about the goal. So that is, that I realize. I am in international intercultural
teams, is the question, the real purpose, for what purpose are we there, what is our raison
d’être as a whole team […] that needs to be strengthened. And from that a sense of unity
emerges. (Expert_2_VT)
In line with that, two informants at GlobalMobility depict that to have the same
work-related targets and objectives is the main reason, why they perceive their geo-
graphically dispersed team as one team. Working on the same tasks helps them to
feel connected, despite the spatial separation:
But I think, we work for the same target, for the same objectives. That’s why, in my perspective,
we are one team. (IF_16_GM3)
I would say, that we are one accounting team and are also geographically dispersed, but
work together on the same topics. (IF_4_GM1)
Moreover, one informant reflects that she constructs a superordinate team identity
including the colleagues from the different locations of her team, when she speaks
to people from other departments. Specifically, she explains, that in the narrow sense
she perceives only her collocated colleagues as part of her team. But once she com-
municates with others GlobalMobility employees from outside her own department,
she perceives her colleagues from the Eastern European location as part of her team
as well. In such situations, she states “We as Accounting”:
in the narrow sense I understand my team as local team, so that are local teams. Because
we are no direct colleagues who see each other every day. But when I expand my view over
to Accounting, than the Romanians are part of my team. When I then, let’s say go outside,
when I communicate with the Project Controlling or with Purchasing or with Sales or so, I
then say: We as Accounting and then I include the Rumanians. (IF_6_GM1)
At GlobalTech, one informant further describes that their common goal and their
main mission and vision as a team is to satisfy their stakeholders. Such overall
objective unites the colleagues within the support functions. As a consequence of
the support function providing shared services to the entire location, there are many
interdependencies and no one works isolated, regardless of the location. Hence, they
see each other as part of the same global team:
So me, working for Switzerland (being located in Poland), means that I have to consider my
final customer. My customer is exactly the same customer as for my colleague IF_24_GT1
(sitting in Switzerland). We all work/we don’t work in isolation. Our functions are not in
isolation. Our/we work to support market in Switzerland to make sure the company sells the
products to/to customers, which we have in Switzerland. So I do support this main vision.
So from this point of view I belong to this/to/I’m dedicated to this. […] You have to/you are
part of the very global team. […] we work towards the same objectives. We want to work on
the same mission, like to help or like to satisfy our stakeholders. (IF_29_GT5)
6.2.2.2 Establishing a Common Work Ethic
To establish a common work ethic is another practice to construct a shared task-

related identity, which may foster the cooperation in a hybrid virtual team. One
expert outlines how a common work ethic can be achieved by establishing rules of
engagement within a hybrid virtual team. To negotiate such common team rules as
a team together is important to feel a virtual closeness:
to develop the similarities, including the identity as well as Rules of Engagement. Through
that develops virtual closeness. […] You have to sit down with the team and have to explain
those differences. And then say: How do we do it in our team? What/Yes, how/so that we all
understand it. When we from each other within 24 hours, or whatsoever, 48, one week, have
a report […] how do we do it? Do we call or do we write? Or do we do both? How do we
formulate that? Do we follow up or do we not follow up? […] So you have to have collective
team rules. (Expert_5_VT)
At GlobalMobility, the common work ethic is mostly outlined in regards to the

accounting tasks. One informant elucidates how the common work ethic manifests
in his team. He describes all team members as accountants who want the numbers
to be correct:
all these characters are accountants, they want, that the numbers are correct. There is nobody
who says, whatever, plus minus 100 or 500, that doesn’t matter for me, the main point is I
have a recognition in some note or whatsoever. (IF_4_GM1)
For example, the informants assess a common work ethic in their perception of
what a good accountant stands for, e.g. the work delivered needs to be perfectly
correct.
We (GM1 and GM2) are the accountants who work thoroughly. The recording of entries
matches the exact cent of the amount. (IF_5_GM1)
Thus, at GlobalMobility, to be a good accountant can be the basis for a shared com-
mon task-related identity despite the geographic dispersion. Another informant fur-
ther states, that this perception of a common identity between the “accountants” also
has a downside. This is because, the team members of the location GM3 (in Romania)
were not perceived as ‘well performing’, so not all members of the geographically
dispersed team at GlobalMobility are part of the shared team identity:
IF_3_GM1: “I would see us (GM1 and GM2) as the skilled accountants and they (GM3)
are not. They always ask such stupid questions”
IF_1_GM1: “If members of GM2 are doing it, it’s like we (GM1) are doing it […] They
GM3 would probably do, if they would know how and what”
IF_3_GM1: “When working with GM2, you get what you expect.” (IF_1_GM1 and
IF_3_GM1: focus group interview)
At GlobalTech, similarly to GlobalMobility, one informant depicts the values a

certain profession stands for, assumed to be ‘lived’ and ‘complied’ to by all her
colleagues as well, in order to have a common work ethic:
being accountable and feeling responsible for what you are doing and not doing the things
like, okay, whatever, maybe nobody will realize. This is/this is not the/the way a Senior
Accountant, Chief Accountant should be/should be really working. So this is really something
crucial and/and fundamental, I guess, for accountant, for any accountant, Junior Accountant,
Senior Accountant up until Controller. (IF_29_GT5)
6.3 Strategy of Trusting
Trusting as a social process is a second strategy to foster cooperation. Based upon

the explanations of the informants, I was able to identify 19 practices, which the
members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations experience and
act out to enable cooperation with each other. These practices can be categorized
into (1) checking as an active trust enablement, (2) signalizing trustworthiness, (3)
co-creating ability-based trust, (4) co-creating benevolence-based trust, and (5) co-
creating integrity based trust.
6.3.1 Overview
The following figure (see Fig. 6.1) provides an overview of the different categories of
individual and co-created trust-building, which are outlined in the following sections
of this chapter.
(1) Checking
Trustor (3) Co-Creating Trust Trustee
(2) Signalizing
Boundaries through
contextual challenges
Fig. 6.1 Trusting to overcome the cooperation problem in hybrid virtual teams. Source Own
illustration
(1) The trustor can actively facilitate the trust development process by consciously
checking. Thereby he or she can undertake the following practices:
• Profiling the potential trustee
• Making use of third party references
• Checking for value (in-)congruence
(2) The trustee can actively enable the trust development process through the
practice of signalizing trustworthiness:
• Demonstrate technical savvyness
• Dealing with lack of knowledge
• Helping behavior
• Show solidarity
• Provide status updates to reduce uncertainty
• Share relevant information proactively
• Exercise discretion
• Demonstrate reliability
(3) The trustor and trustee together can co-create trust through orientating and
adapting their own behavior according to the other:
• Building knowledge together
• Communicating results of self-checks
• Sharing virtual social recognition
• Showing emotional credibility
6.3 Strategy of Trusting 151
• Establishing a joint understanding of reliability

• Admitting and forgiving mistakes
• Maintaining confidentiality
• Agreeing on an appropriate level of gossip
Those practices, regardless whether categorized as individual and co-created trust-
building activities, can enable cooperation in a hybrid virtual team in Shared Services
Organizations.
6.3.2 Checking as Active Trust Enablement
The (potential) trustor can actively facilitate the process of trusting. A trustful collab-
oration between the members of the hybrid virtual team can be enabled by actively
checking for the other’s trustworthiness. Through checking, the trustor can actively
reduce the uncertainty in the virtual context. However, the informants describe that
such checking as active trust enablement is more difficult in virtual collaborations
compared to a face-to-face setting. The informants outline three different practices in
order to actively enable the evaluation of their interaction partner’s trustworthiness,
even in a virtual environment: (1) profiling the potential trustee, (2) making use of
third party references and (3) checking for value (in-) congruence.
6.3.2.1 Profiling the Potential Trustee
To “build a profile” (IF_30_GT5) about the potential trustee, the trustor can ‘inter-
view’ the other party to obtain personal information, but also scan the other person.
Thus, verbal and visual expressions can be used as a source of information about
the interaction partner’s trustworthiness. Thereby, the trustor invests extra effort into
actively asking for and listing to the interaction partner’s personal information. Doing
such conscious investigation, can help to get a better sense of the potential trustee:
You know, when you know the person a little more privately and when the person shows or
gives or says something private about oneself, then it is easier to develop the trust. Because
I know him […] I know his girlfriend, it is a little bit different also. So I can ask him/I know,
that he does vacation […] Und that creates a little bit of trust. (IF_28_GT5)
Thus, moving beyond purely task- or work-related information can facilitate the
development of a more comprehensive profile about the interaction partner. Such
profiling through ‘interviewing’ helps to build a relationship with the interaction
partner and can create trust. In consistency, another informant elucidates, that he
actively listens to the additional information provided by his interaction partner. The
more information he can obtain, the better may be the profile about the other party.
The more comprehensive the profile, the more likely he can trust the interaction
partner:
to build this kind of relation. […] They also bring family thing to it. […] I missed my
daughter’s event in the school, because I had to work on it. So once they are sharing this
information with you, then you also can build a profile of the person. […] the amount of trust
depends on how good profile of the person you are able to build. And it happens, because
they share with you some additional information, not only related to this particular matter
(..) but also they can just say something more, right. (IF_30_GT5)
Interestingly, at GlobalTech with the opportunity to work from everywhere,

including from home, during the video conferences additional contextual and visual
cues may feed into the profile and the evaluation of the interaction partner’s trust-
worthiness. Examples for such cues could be the other’s private surroundings or
appearance at home. One informant describes that the surrounding determines for
how professionally others perceive a person:
a lot from the Home-Office. And I reflect what is standing behind me. Is the ironing cabinet
open and hanging the/or is the dirty laundry laying around/or do I have a clean wall with a
GlobalTech logo? You can frame it. The pros are doing it. The know it for sure. The amateurs
sometimes have the open ironing board standing behind them. You have that too. […] When
I see it regularly, I will make a joke about it. When I see it once, I think, the wife has just/has
just been kicked out of the home office, because something else is happening there. He had
to find a calm place. Totally okay. But it still matters. How professional one is perceived, in
the sense of, how does the setting look like. (IF_26_GT3)
In sum, verbal and visual cues can be deployed as a source to establish a profile
of the interaction partner’s trustworthiness, even when working across distance and
through communication technology.
6.3.2.2 Making Use of Third Party References
Another practice to evaluate the trustworthiness of the interaction partner relates

to prompting fellow co-workers for their reference and their experiences with an
interaction partner. Making use of third party references can be a practice of active
trust enablement, which is especially relevant when starting to cooperate with ‘new
joiners’ to the team or ‘new interaction partner’. One informant describes, that to
obtain references from colleagues help her to prepare for the cooperation with the new
interaction partner. Thereby, she stresses, that she differentiates between the sources
of references, for example the references from somebody, who always complains,
will be treated differently to more ‘realistic’ references:
When somebody from our local team says to me, watch out, he is good and he is doing a
good job […] if it is said, that he does a good job, of course one is a bit more positively
tune-/So the expectations are accordingly then. When somebody says, oh my Goodness, this
one doesn’t work well and it didn’t work at all with him in the past. Of course you are
prejudiced. Of course you develop your own opinion, but of course it matters somehow […]
You would differentiate then, yes. When you for example have somebody who only complains,
who always rails against everything, you know, and so, then you don’t take it seriously, then
everything is bad. (IF_3_GM1)
To use familiar interaction partners as proxies for the evaluation of an unfamiliar

interaction partner can be highly beneficial and efficient to gather information about
the new interaction partner’s reputation:
One talks with the previous boss and says: Has he delivered his stuff on time and done
orderly? Or one knows another colleague, who have worked together/then one can say:
What reputation does he have? Yes, this and this. That is what you get to know from the
proxies. (IF_26_GT3)
Another informant explains, that he also takes the history of work of new col-
leagues into account. Furthermore, he implicates that he indirectly relies on the
assessments of others, especially the ones at GlobalTech, who have decided to put
the new colleague in the respective position:
Well, first of all this a big account of the client or the big transaction in general. You have the
people, you don’t have any new joiners there. So usually you have the people, who works/or
sometimes already in our company. And you can also check the record, (..) right, because
when/I mean, the record/By record I mean the history of the work. (IF_30_GT5)
To build on the experiences of others can be a good practice to accelerate the

process of active trust enablement, because it helps to ‘fill in the gaps’ about the
interaction partner’s trustworthiness.
6.3.2.3 Checking for Value (in-) Congruence
Another activity of the (potential) trustor, which can be linked to the active enabling of
the other’s trustworthiness evaluation, is the conscious checking whether the (poten-
tial) trustee adheres to similar values. One informant outlines, that it is important for
him to check, if his teammate has the same core values, for example in respect to his
family life or to hobbies than himself:
he is calling you, he tells you, okay, could you just do this thing, but by the way, […] I was/last
weekend I spent with my family, dining with my parents, […] so you know, what’s going on
with this person, so you can assume, that this person won’t take/will not do the risky things,
for instance. […] Because he has a family he needs to provide to and he wants to keep his
job, right […] So when you have more information about the person, you tend to trust this
person more […] what I’m saying is, that if you have more information about the person,
it’s good. And if this information makes you more comfortable with the person, you tend to
trust this person more, right. […] Personal information. […] about family, about hobbies
[…] (IW: How much do you trust that person?) Also it depends, how it’s compliant with
yourself, right. If you are like totally opposite, then there will be likeliness understanding
(unv.) The connection would be limited. But on the other hand, if you are the same, you
can/you know, probably you can/you mirror some kind of behavior, right. So if you are also
the base jumper, so you can assume, that this person will behave like you in the situ/sit/in
this particular situation, right. You just think, that he would do the same. And if you are okay
with this you just go for it. On the other hand, if you are like a stable man, family guy and
you are dealing with this guy, for instance, you may feel less comfortable. And because of
you are feeling less comfortable, then you would be checking more. (IF_30_GT5)
Another informants explains, that she checks for value congruence with her inter-
action partners to figure out whether they are ‘needlessly’ stressed out with every
business transaction or whether they are dealing with their work pragmatically. She
explains, the likes only the latter characters, because she wants to work with people
who have similar values and approach to work:
someone, who is always stressed out, right, I mean, someone, who is always stressed out,
always/even for items, that are not really stressful, or who make a big issue on small items,
right/it would be/for me I would expect this person in her personal life as well to be like
always like, oh, my God/I have to go back, oh, my God, you know. For me it’s not the kind
of person I like. While someone, who has a more pragmatically approach and say, okay,
alright, let’s do that, we have to do it, let’s do it, and we laugh, you know, when we are on
call, we have fun as well, we work, but we can have fun to/you know, as well as working.
Usually these people approach life the same way, meaning more relaxed and having fun,
even if you are doing serious, you know, subjects, you are working on serious subjects, but
still have your, you know, balance with fun and not being so serious. (IF_25_GT2)
A perceived value (in-) congruence is an important information, which feeds

into the trustor’s evaluation of whether fellow team members are expected to be
trustworthy or untrustworthy. Values about family or hobbies can be deployed as
cues to enable trust through the trustor’s checking of other party’s trustworthiness.
6.3.3 Signalizing Trustworthiness
The (potential) trustee can perform different practices in order to be perceived as

trustworthy. By signalizing one’s trustworthiness, the trustee can complement the
activities of the trustor (see Sect. 6.3.2), who on his or her side can actively set the
ground for perception of the other party’s trustworthiness. Especially in a challeng-
ing environment such as hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations, it is
necessary for the trustee to become active and foster the perception of trustworthi-
ness. To do so, I identified different practices the trustee can perform to send credible
signals towards the trustor about its trustworthiness, related to (1) signalizing ability,
(2) signalizing benevolence and (3) signalizing integrity. All these practices of sig-
nalizing trustworthiness can help to foster cooperation between trustor and trustee
in hybrid virtual teams.
6.3.3.1 Signalizing Ability
The (potential) trustee can signalize different ability-related cues in order to be

perceived as trustworthy, even across geographical distance in a virtual environ-
ment: First, demonstrating technical savvyness and second, dealing with incomplete
knowledge.
Demonstrating technical savvyness. Demonstrating technical skills can be one
trustworthiness cue referring to ability can comprise: (1) the right media choice, (2)
sticking to the netiquette regarding availability, and (3) sticking to the netiquette
regarding video conferences.
(1) Media Choice: Choosing the right media for completing a certain task success-
fully is perceived as very important and can demonstrate the technical savvy-
ness of the interaction partner. Two informants exemplarily outline that their
media choice depends on different requirements regarding their own needs in
the individual situation as well as the needs of their interaction partners:
most of that depends on the issue and depend on the deadline, depend on the quality of the
information I need. And depend what is the purpose of my call, because if, for example, I’m
waiting for some information to have backup to have/you know […] So the outcome, like you
have to really assess what you need and how quickly you need the information. And, yes,
you have to assess your things. So I’m just saying, you need to adapt the communication
way, the communication type to the issue, which you really/which you are working on, to the
person. (IF_29_GT5)
if you understand the media, which strength they have, if you know, what the human desires
are, then you can this/We call it Heartbeat. (Expert_4_VT)
In addition, another informant explains precisely what media he uses for which
activity:
up to 60 to 70% via E-Mail. 20% chat and the remaining with telephone (…) depending on
the content of the message. If one has to produce bookings or activities, actions […] or alike
out of it, then with E-Mail. If it is about trifles, just quickly via chat. And in between calling.
Then it is more about the inter-personal […] complex request, those via screen via remote
[…] try to comprehend it right on screen. (IF_4_GM1)
While this may be perceived as ‘tech-savvyness’ among GlobalMobility infor-

mants, it would most likely not be sufficient at GlobalTech to feed into ability cues.
Hence, demonstrating one’s IT-driven competence in a ‘traditional’ environment,
may be less complicated and in consequence the respective ability level required
to be a successfully collaborator is likely to be lower at GlobalMobility relative to
GlobalTech. One informant exemplarily outlines the variety of skills a GlobalTech
employees needs when they are using communication technology:
And they are all pros. The people work here since/since the video has entered the office, the
people work here. The can/are all pros. I don’t know how is would be like if you have someone
who has never worked with this kind of technology. But here it doesn’t make a difference, my
view […] When one is doing video-meetings, always only one can talk. The requires a certain
discipline. Thereon you realize how is works, for example. There are specific content, which
you through video/Ah okay, technical, how good are they technology-wise. The equipment
is childishly simple, but that you mute yourself, re-mute, when you don’t talk, to create
no background noise. So pros are doing it automatically. Zack. Amateurs only, once they
have been asked to do so. Such things, that you can handle the communication technology,
with the sometimes limited communication channels, which exist. There are still limitations.
(IF_26_GT3)
(2) Netiquette (availability): Checking the other party’s availability status is per-
ceived as another practice which may determine the perception of being com-
petent with communication technology. Numerous informants explained, that
it is perceived as “good practice” (IF_29_GT5) to first check the messenger
status of the person one wants to contact. Usually only when the status is set on
‘available’, one writes that person an instant message and asks whether it is a
good time to call or what time would suit better:
So my practice, my good practice is just to first ask the person, are you available to have a
call, because you can talk also then, type. […] So/so that’s actually then the most popular
way of communicating, typing something rather than calling straight. And if the person is
saying, yes, I’m working from home office, you can call, then I can call. But/but if not, then
I can always ask, can you blabla help me, blabla. So that’s the way it works. (IF_29_GT5)
Another informant describes a similar behavior, explaining that she always checks
the messenger status of the person, before contacting her colleague:
Because you have a status. For example: busy, not at the desk, WebEx or a meeting. When I
see for example, that he has a meeting, then I write him: Hi IF_24_GT1, do you maybe have
one hour time around four, I would like to discuss that with you. […] I don’t know if he is
having a phone call or so. (IF_28_GT5)
In addition, the practice of appreciating other’s (non-) availability is not only a

perceived as a sign of ability to organize oneself, but also a sign of respect for the
others party’s current work status and agenda, as one informant explains:
So all those communication methods they go parallel. And you just have to kind of assess
on your own, what is really needed. Sometimes I prefer to pick up the phone and to call
to someone. But sometimes the person is on business status or/or is on a meeting. So you
have to also (appreciate) that people may not want to be destructed during the day, because
they/they have to be focused, they don’t want calls. (IF_29_GT5)
(3) Netiquette (video conferences): As video conferencing is a not available media

at GlobalMobility, being proficient in using it is not a requirement in their
hybrid virtual teams. In contrast, at GlobalTech all of the employees have a
webcam and a screen integrated into their landline phone at their work place.
Furthermore, some employees have an additional webcam mounted on their lap-
top or desktop computer. Furthermore, there are dedicated conference rooms
equipped with high definition video conferencing technology, so-called TeleP-
resence. Due to that prevalence and common utilization, deploying the video
technology properly becomes critical for all the GlobalTech employees.
For example, during the course of the field research, I discovered a guideline for
netiquette during video conferences in the TelePresence rooms, mounted on multiple
walls at GlobalTech (see following document A).
Document A: TelePresence meeting netiquette (GlobalTech)
Close the door to the TelePresence room Be conscientious of your appearance and
manners
Do not open the window blinds or shades
Do not block your microphone
Avoid food and drinks in the TelePresence
room Speak using your normal voice
Sit facing your TelePresence screen Do not lean across the segments
Close your laptop if not needed during the Do not stand up and talk
TelePresence session
Avoid walking behind the TelePresence unit
Loop your laptop power cord over the back
Do not touch the plasma screens
and then underneath to the front of the desk-
top End your TelePresence meeting on time
Note: This list is copied from the original list omitting the real name of GlobalTech in order to not endanger its ano-
nymity.
Considering the numerous aspects, which a user of such a video conferencing

system needs to have in mind, also increases the risk of misdoing something. Such
lapses may be perceived as a lack of competence in communication technology. Yet,
one informant explained, that some of their colleagues are struggling with fundament
things already, for example, forgetting to properly setting up their webcam during
the call:
so that the camera doesn’t turn on. I don’t do that for the calls […] Or no, when you turn it
here, then it is all black. And you can do it like this, then you have the camera. From time to
time, some people leave the camera like this and then you have on the (unv.) then the new
window and it is totally black. And you are talking to a black window. (IF_28_GT5)
Another informant describes a similar experience regarding the netiquette of video

conferencing. He explains, that the experts know what needs to be considered to make
the best use of the video conference system, for example having the right position in
front of the camera:
It is not as smoothly as face-to-face. And the pros know the and be aware of/have integrated
that. How you sit in front of such machine, that the camera is not there top left and you sit
in front. And the people/that you have considered the background. (IF_26_GT3)
Dealing with lack of knowledge. As a second ability-based trustworthiness cue

several informants mention the capability to deal with a lack of knowledge. This can
refer to (1) prepare your questions, (2) reaching out to additional sources, and (3)
reaching out to additional colleagues.
(1) Prepare your questions: To have a lack of knowledge and admit that is perceived
as professional, as one informant exemplarily outlines. She explains, that it is
okay to not know everything, especially in a dynamic and changing environment.
Thus, she describes that it is reasonable for her to ask questions:
Unless I don’t know something, then I’m saying, sorry, I don’t know, how to disclose blabla?
How to book something? This is also professional, because we are not experts in everything
and the law is changing, regulations are changing, standards are changing. So everybody
needs to learn every day something new. So that’s still fine to say, sorry, I don’t know, I
will/(and work) on the issue and clarify the issue. So it’s still professional. (IF_29_GT5)
In order to be perceived as competent, one informant further elaborates that if

there is a need to acknowledge that something is not clear, she recommends to not
approach others unprepared, without having invested already some time individually
in solving the issue. According to her it is important to first try to solve problems
oneself, before approaching others:
To be honest, I try to find it on my own. First to read something about it and then always ask
a precise question, when I don’t understand something. I don’t want/You know, I don’t call
him: Explain it to me. Enlighten me or so. No, I try to find it myself […] And there, where I
don’t know, I ask him. […] Yes, I try to input something in advance. So for it is then/I don’t
want to waste his time. It is my work to know that somehow. (IF_28_GT5)
To prepare oneself in order to not unnecessarily impede the follow team mem-
bers, either with unprepared questions or with ‘lousy’ work seems to be a very
important cue for ability and a sign of respect towards the interaction partner, as
another interviewee further elucidates:
By being prepared to my work, right. So for instance, if we have a call about the matter and
it’s/and it’s scheduled in one or days front, then I try to be prepared on the call. (IF_30_GT5)
Showing a general interest in the tasks to be completed is another cue of

the trustee’s ability, which the trustee can demonstrate by asking comprehension
questions:
I don’t like to do things, you know, like: Write A in this space and B in this space. So he also
tries to avoid that it is work for apes. So that I really know, why I do something, that I have
the complete picture of the process, what I really like […] when they talk about something,
where I’m not sure what it is about, then I ask him, what is it. Can you explain it to me?
(IF_28_GT5)
Related to that, one informant further states, that it is important for the percep-
tion of ability to show interest and the desire ‘to see the bigger picture’. This is a
prerequisite to him for a successful task completion:
that they are interested themselves. That is an important point […] I must be eager to learn,
to know, what happens before, what happens afterwards? What are my dependencies and
who is depending on me? […] that is an essential condition. (IF_2_GM1)
Concluding, what I discovered at GlobalMobility and GlobalTech is, that in gen-

eral the informants acknowledge that incomplete knowledge is not a sign of inability
per se, but rather how (prepared) and why (wants to have more knowledge) somebody
ask questions.
(2) Reach out to additional sources: An interesting phenomenon which could be
observed at GlobalTech is, that somehow counter-intuitively, video conferencing
despite its high synchronicity being comparable to face-to-face meetings, offers
still the chance to check in parallel on laptop without the others (actually)
noticing it. As one informant explains, he assumes that therewith one can be
perceived as more competent:
virtually collaborate with someone and you have camera on your face, you can also have
your laptop on […] So when you are speaking about something, you can use laptop as a help
[…] you can use the devices, which can give you some hints or information […] I would
say, it looks more professional, […] It looks that you are better prepared for something. And
in the real life it wouldn’t be like this, right, because you would have the person, who is
sitting in front of you and you’ll be reading from the laptop or something like this. So it/you
are using this advantage, right. So virtual collaboration does (..) have this possibility to be
more/It’s like with the politician with/they use prompter, right. So imagine, how it worked,
before the prompter. And how it is with the prompter. So it looks more professional and better
prepared to the work. And, yes, anyone, TV transmitter […] you think, he speaks from his
mind and he is not reading. And in real life he is reading. So I would say, that this is the same
in the virtual collaboration. […] when/In the real life you would be seeing, if the person is
not prepared. […] that you can always reach out to this source of information during the
call […] if you don’t know something, you can just say something else or ask the question
and during this time you can just look for one information, which you were missing. So you
can just give the information later, reading it from the Oracle or something. But you will find
the information, right. (IF_30_GT5)
The same informant continues, reflecting whether this is an ‘appropriate’ behavior

and concludes, that such a behavior is also a sign of ability. Thus, nobody needs to
know all the details by heart anymore. Instead, one just needs to be capable of
knowing where to look for the answers:
Second thing, assume, that you don’t know and the person does it, what does it mean? I mean,
it means nothing. I mean, it means that he is also prepared, but he doesn’t have everything
in his mind, right, so he can read. And the good thing is, that he has something to read from,
((smiling quietly)) right. So there are some materials. So he is prepared. And second thing
is that he is trying to look/looks good, right, in front of you. So it’s also a good signal or/So
I wouldn’t say that this is something wrong. (IF_30_GT5)
While the above quotes refer to resorting to additional information in parallel to

the communication, another aspect, which arose during the observation of a WebEx
conference between team members, located at two sites in Eastern Europe and one
site in India, was about the possibility to postponing answers. During the conference,
a large excel file was shared with a split screen and everybody was able to see it at
the same time. One of the informants was asked to provide additional information,
yet she was not capable to do so but smoothly managed to propose to share the file
via email so she could comment on it later:
I just missed the context. But she wanted me to review the file obviously, but/but I think/or
I’ve just said that R. needs to do something. And she said, I will send the file to you. I/I
was just missing context what he wanted. And E. said, okay, send that on the me and copy
K. And we will review that, something like that, together, isn’t it? (laughing) (I don’t really
know), what should I review, like what is this? But he said (said to me) after the call. (IW:
So now/now you will wait for what you receive and then check?) I received already. And
the/again, as discussed over call, please provide complete, ah, details, okay. So/I missed
the context, because I just didn’t know, what he asked me. (But as I said), sometimes I’m
struggling with/[…] with understanding. (IF_29_GT5)
The observation and the clarifications in the interviews revealed, that the informant
was somehow hesitant to openly express during the WebEx meeting that something
is not clear to her and that she is not able to respond right away. Yet, her reactions,
e.g. raising her eyebrows and ripple of laughter, passed by unnoticed for the virtual
interaction partners. At the same time, the observing researcher, being face-to-face,
noticed it.
Hence, it can be interpreted, that it is easier and more natural to say ‘send me
the file and I will review it afterwards’, when all sitting around their laptops at
different locations during a web-conference, rather than all sitting together face-
to-face. This is an additional insight illustrating that video conferences may help to
maintain the perception of ability, because the informant was allowed to comprehend
the information (for example the detailed excel file) afterwards in her own speed.
(3) Reach out to additional people: Approaching the appropriate people, who can
actually assist is a third way to deal with a lack of knowledge and still be per-
ceived as competent. This as well becomes a key ability, especially as the more
complex the tasks become the less likely is it that somebody can handle them
alone. Therefore, rather than knowing everything oneself, it is about establishing
a network spanning across diverse and dispersed expertise in order to involved
the right parties once needed:
But this is also part of my job, I have to say, to make sure people are meeting somewhere.
And if they are not/if they are not aware of how to address things, whom should be involved,
then we just need to talk about issues. […] because, as you could see/we were not/there were
a few people involved and we are still not aware of many things. (IF_29_GT5)
6.3.3.2 Signalizing Benevolence
The (potential) trustee can signalize different trustworthiness cues in order to be

perceived as benevolent. The informants thereby refer to four different practices:
(1) Helping behavior, (2) show solidarity, (3) provide status updates to reduce
uncertainty, and (4) share relevant information proactively.
Helping behavior. One aspect, which can generally be linked with benevolent
behavior, is helping behavior. Helping behavior is characterized by discretionary
behaviors that have the effect of helping a specific work colleague with an organi-
zationally relevant task or problem. One informant, a HR business partners located
in Switzerland, mentions numerous practices of his interaction partners, which he
associates with his perception of the other’s benevolence. Interestingly, he has some-
one specific in mind and grounds his assessment on the comparison of this specific
relationship with other team members he has at GlobalTech:
There I feel, what kind of support I get […] and now with her, with her I work closely together
[…] and what things she is doing on my behalf, which she maybe not required to do. But
fully committed also towards me and is, that we are backups for each other. And this you
can feel quite good. (IF_24_GT1)
Interestingly, the informant talking about his colleague and how he interprets her
behavior as being benevolent by for example doing more than she maybe should.
During the field research I also have had the chance to let her (IF_28_GT5) refer to
that statement of her colleague. In line with what he perceives, she also describes
her willingness to do additional work, which might not be exclusively her task, but
maybe the work of others, and thus demonstrating extra role behavior:
When I receive a request and I know, that that might be a little of my area of responsibility,
and a bit the area of responsibility of another team; there I try to approach the other team at
least, whether they can assist and provide an answer to that person. So for me, I don’t like,
that everything is black or white; this is mine and this is yours. […] There I try to help a little.
So I think it’s linked to the good will of the person and how the person works […] so there
are things, where I know they are not my tasks, but I want to help anyways. (IF_28_GT5)
Show solidarity. To offer assistance and to have a sympathetic ear for colleagues,
when they are in difficult situation at work, can be another cue for benevolence. One
informant elucidates exemplarily, that in a difficult situation, in which he had to deal
with lay-offs, other team members from different locations contacted him via video
calls and offered him assistance:
So, we just had restructurings and there were of course some difficult situations. And when
you then – let’s say – are alone (laughing) and you feel and with other HR colleagues, who
than consciously get in touch with you through video, probing into it […] or that other,
during that time HR colleagues have approached you, simply to ask and offer their help.
Hey, how is it going in (unv.), can I give you a hand with something, can I support you with
that. Yes, that you don’t do when you are not benevolent with each other. (IF_24_GT1)
For him this solidarity, which he felt was a cue of a benevolent relationship with
his teammates, even across geographical boundaries.
Providing status updates to reduce uncertainty. One informant describes that
providing a short feedback is a nice way to signalize appreciation to the interaction
partner’s contribution. This is a benevolent practice, because the interaction partner
can be certain that the task is successfully completed:
And once I did/once I handled it and once it’s done, then I tend to give them email or
something like this, that it’s done, right. That the subject is closed. Well, it depends on the
person’s style, right. Something/It’s a good etiquette, […] of people, who work (unv.), right.
[…] it’s like polite. […] this is like the small effort from your side, which makes another
person more comfortable, right, because he knows that something is done so at this point,
you completed something. (IF_30_GT5)
Moreover, another informant outlines, that one needs to double check like in the
army, explaining that she perceives it to be important in virtual communication to
always confirm that one received the message and will work on it:
It’s/the communication is really important, because you don’t have the person in front of
you, right. It’s a virtual communication. It’s very important to/How should I say that? It’s
a bit like, you know, at the army/that you double check, yes/you know, I got your message,
yes, and you can confirm that you got the message. And then the other person receives the
message and is gonna work on it. (IF_25_GT2)
Share relevant information proactively. It is another benevolent-based behavior

pattern to ensure that the interaction partner has all the necessary information. For
example not only including ‚hard facts’ but maybe also contextual information which
the other may need to consider, when doing its work:
So he knows, when I want some more background information about something, then I will
ask him. And then it will also be easier for me to do it. It is not like: Send me this and do this
for me. You know, he also tells me the background. (IF_28_GT5)
Thus, putting oneself in the shoes of the other person, can help the other to
successfully complete his or her work and can be considered a cue of benevolent
behavior of the (potential) trustee.
6.3.3.3 Signalizing Integrity
To foster the perception of being an integer team member is perceived as a core value
by many informants:
let’s say, fundamental value. An accountant should express integrity, should be seen and
should/should/should be considered as a person really applying integrity everywhere.
(IF_29_GT5)
In order to achieve a perception of being integer, the informants have most fre-
quently mentioned two main behavioral patterns: (1) exercise discretion, and (2)
demonstrate reliability.
Exercise discretion. Multiple informants gave voice to the importance of ensuring
an appropriate selection of who is in the loop of communication and who is not, and
thus, handle potentially sensitive information with discretion. For instance, being
discrete about mistakes and trying to solve them bilateral with the ‘perpetrator’ can
be a cue for the integrity of a potential trustee in hybrid virtual teams:
if something is wrong […] than it goes through the unofficial channels directly to the
colleague, who is responsible […] I don’t use the list of 20 people. (IF_2_GM1)
In contrast, from the standpoint of one informant, who had an experience that an
interaction partner did not exercise discretion, but instead escalated the issue to her
supervisor, she mentions that this has decreased her trust in that respective person:
now I got back the letter, with my manager in copy, that there is a mistake […] You know,
it takes more time to write an email, than you know there/And then you don’t have so much
trust for the other person. (IF_28_GT5)
These quotes show, that a conscious communication and sharing of information

can be a cue of the trustee’s integer behavior in hybrid virtual teams, especially as
‘reply to all’ is easily done and can have negative effect on fellow teammates.
Demonstrate reliability. In addition, the informants have linked the perception
of integrity with being reliable. One informant exemplarily outlines that for him
being integer and trustworthy means that others can rely on him:
first of all I try to be trustworthy. So when I say that I will do something, I’m going to do it.
And/and by that they have the feeling that, if there is a matter, which needs to be handled,
and they contact me and I/and I tell them that, okay, I will do it, then it will be done, right.
[…] building trust. (IF_30_GT5)
Moreover, in a complex and self-managed work context another informant eluci-

dates that it is of importance to her, that she is accountable, to others can rely on her.
This means also, that she herself feels responsible for doing a correct work, despite
the fact, that nobody would notice whether she is doing a lax job:
Like in many/in many cases nobody really supervises me deeply. And it’s important to check
everything […] So, hm, integrity is just being accountable and feeling responsible for what
you are doing and not doing the things like, okay, whatever, maybe nobody will realize.
(IF_29_GT5)
6.3.4 Co-creating Ability-Based Trust
Ability-based trust in hybrid virtual teams can be co-created between different inter-
action partners. Yet, the respective behavioral patterns need to be accustomed to the
interaction partner and the specific situation each time. Therewith, it can be more than
a social process wherein one individual alone demonstrates his or her ability. Two
concepts were identified, showing how ability-based trust is created, even in hybrid
virtual teams: (1) building knowledge together and (2) communication results of
self-checks.
6.3.4.1 Building Knowledge Together
One way in creating ability-based trust in a hybrid virtual team is the joint openness
to build knowledge together. Multiple informants emphasize their appreciation of
practices of their interaction partners, which can be interpreted as the striving to
learn and improve. The informants value that kind of cooperation with each other as
it can offer the opportunity to create ability and knowledge together. With the right
attitude and an evolved relationship, mistakes can be seen as an opportunity for joint
development:
And I also want that he tells me when I have done something wrong. So that I know, what I
can learn from my mistakes. IT is not like: Ah, you have done it wrong, send it to me again.
He can/I know, that he would correct it himself, if he has not so much time or if it was a minor
issue. And he writes me: You know what, the next time, I don’t want to do it like this. Yes and
I save me the mail somewhere, in which he writes, how we are doing it. (IF_28_GT5)
Admitting to your colleagues that you do not know something takes courage.
Raising a question can be a ‘simple’ act of trust on your part and can speak volumes to
the people who hear it. In line with that, showing interest and the desire to understand
in order to actively build knowledge through asking questions, seems to be generally
valued in a virtual collaboration. Doing it right, can enable a co-creation of ability-
based trust. As the following quote illustrates, asking questions and answering them
can be beneficial for both parties involved. Thus, they can co-create ability-based
trust:
And they know, when I don’t know something, I will ask them […] Here is something I am not
sure about, can you check if it is that or that? […] So for me it is also better to ask somebody,
then doing a mistake and to start from the beginning again. Yes and I am a little like, that
I asked so long until I have understood and then/They knew, that I will not ask again later,
because I know what that is. (IF_28_GT5)
From the perspective of the person receiving a question from a colleague, infor-
mants have explained, that this act may not only implicate that the ‘questioner’ wants
to learn or better understand something, it also signals that oneself is perceived as
a trustworthy counterpart. And if the answer and the gained knowledge will be suc-
cessfully integrated in the future work, the chances are good that the trustee next
time trusts the ‘questioner’ more. If that is the case, this person is the trustor because
the counterpart is perceived as more capable and therefore its work might be trusted
more and less controlled:
the colleagues in the Shared Services Centre […] they definitely want to have knowledge. It
is certainly so, that they come and ask me: ‘Can you explain this to me once more?’ […] And
then they absorb the answers. This is how you of course have a development. (IF_8_GM2)
Similarly, another informant explicates that being approached with a question is

generally fine and helping each other and providing support by answering the question
is also a means of building a relationship, but he further stresses that it is critical how
the answer is dealt with. As he specifies, there needs to be an improvement for trust
to develop, otherwise if this development fails to materialize, it can actually trigger
mistrust:
at work, and this person is also calling you and asking you the questions, then you can
assume, that this is a good thing, because this person wants to learn something, right. So
you provide your knowledge, you provide information, you spend your time to improve this
work and it also works for you in the future, right, because you will get the better work from
this person later. […] So this is the point, when you start to build the trust. If you are spending
the time with the person and you provide the knowledge and this person just absorbs the
knowledge and implements the knowledge, then this is, how you build the trust. Because you
spend some time, right. You spend some time with this person, you talk, And if you have the
person, who just wants to do it and later doesn’t care about it and you have the same call
on the same discussion after one week or/and another week you have similar discussion,
then you have this kind of feeling, that something is not working and you are more skeptical
about this person. (IF_30_GT5)
To raise questions and work on the answers together cannot only build knowledge,
it can also help to build a relationship. Thus, the openness to such an exchange can
be a win-win situation for both parties involved. Yet, at the same time, from the
perspective of the person being asked, it is critical how the answer is dealt with. The
informants’ quotes show, that having a question is generally acceptable, but the next
steps of the counterpart are (consciously) traced and when seeing no developing or
encountering the same thing twice will be hold against the ‘questioner’.
In addition, from the perspective of the person asking, daring to raise a question
implies a (small) leap of faith of the person asking. As a trustor, this person makes
oneself vulnerable by taking the risk of being perceived as unable by the other party.
So it is important to the ‘questioner’ to feel comfortable with the interaction partner
and assume that the other person will appreciate the desire to gain knowledge by
asking:
And for me, I am curious by nature. Yes so, I want to understand what I am doing. That is
why I appreciate, that they are telling me as much as possible. Why it is calculated like that.
Yes so, when I have the feeling I want to know more […] I ask. (IF_28_GT5)
Therefore, the initial reactions of the persons approached are essential cues for
the ‘questioner’, because they can respond in a favorable way, not only appreciating
the effort of asking, but also provide knowledge, which can then co-create ability-
based trust. Regarding this, one informant describes a situation, when his trust in the
colleagues was warranted. Consequently, he adapts his future behavior, as he now
knows that quite a lot of knowledge and ability is available among his colleagues:
if you don’t know something, just raising a question […] don’t think to much so times it’s
better to ask right away, spares you some work […] put topics on the table and feel what kind
of knowledge there is already in the team, they want to support you […] You are trusting,
when you raise a question, saying ‘hey I don’t know’. And then, when you feel that kind of
energy, that kind of motivation, that knowledge which comes back to you. This is of course
an experience, confirming to yourself, that in the future you can count on that […] involve
the others accordingly. (IF_24_GT1)
Yet, related to the idea of co-creation, another informant explains, that it is impor-
tant to adapt the way of asking questions to the different interaction partners. As she
further elaborates, she knows whom to approach and how her interaction partners
most likely will react:
it depends on the person as well. I know that we had a young HR Manager there […] you
could feel that he likes to explain it. He likes it, to share his knowledge with others […] he
had fun to explain it. The others, the other more senior people just wanted to have (unv.)
from us and they didn’t want to devote to much time to us. But I think, it depends on the
person […] Because I knew, whom I could reach via phone, with whom I shall better set up
a meeting or whom I have to send an email with questions. And I knew, that I will get an
answer the next day. Or I knew, how I can put the question so that I get my work; so that
it is not only yes or no […] There were people, where I have asked a little more, because I
knew, that they explain me a little more. Because they wanted it also, that I understand. But
there were people, where I didn’t ask so much because I knew, that the answers I will get are
– you know, one sentence and that’s it. It depends on the people. (IF_28_GT5)
Hence, what the above and the following quotes show is, that the openness to
build knowledge together as an interaction to establish ability-based trust is clearly
a social process between the interaction partners. Aligning each other’s behavior
patterns links to the idea of co-creating knowledge and successful cooperation:
because for example in the past I have done it good or I knew, what it is about. It was no
problem for me to do it […] So we had a call together, he has asked me, whether I feel
comfortable, if it is okay for me to do it. And this I have then prepared. I have described my
line of thinking and my line of action in an email for him, was I have done there. Yes and it
was me then asking him for feedback. (IF_28_GT5)
Another informant additionally notes that the other’s ability in the hybrid virtual
team can be best assessed by how that person deals with problems and if the potential
trustee puts in additional effort in coming up with proposals for a solution oneself:
with problems arising, how they deal with them, if they can manage them or if they cannot
detect the reason themselves and check with me, or if they independently tackle it or only
give feedback or only briefly ask for approval, where I only have to say: Yes, right, this is
how you can do it. Already suggest solutions. (IF_4_GM1)
Deploying the above statements from the field research in hybrid virtual teams,
ability seems to be something which is constantly evolving and co-produced, where-
fore the process, especially the social process, in order to build ability becomes a key
criterion for a trust-based relationship.
6.3.4.2 Communicating Results of Self-Checks
As a second way of co-creating ability, multiple informants explain, that they dif-
ferentiate between the colleagues who consciously check themselves and their work
and those who seem to not check their own work at all. Based on this, one informant
adapts her own behavior, taking into account whether she has made the experience
that the interaction partner is checking oneself or not:
the other, there I recognize: He processes and controls himself. And so to say, I can trust
him. There I know, I don’t need to check once more. (IF_8_GM2)
In general, it is difficult to get a feeling for the interaction partner and how much
he/she actually checked his or her own work. In that respect, ‘plausibility checks’ and
related self-checks were perceived as good indicators for the others party’s ability.
If an interaction partner shares work with them which contains obvious mistakes,
this can either mean that the other party is not capable to perform the task correctly
or has a ‘different understanding to quality’ and miss to ensure error-free work, as
outlined by one informant:
Would they have thought it through themselves, they would have noticed, that it can’t be like
that […] He has for example […] set 0,9 per cent, instead of 90 per cent […] No feeling of
fault at all. (IF_2_GM1)
Taking these two quotes together, the practice of communicating results of self-
checks can be seen as a co-creation of ability as the trustor in the first place is the
person performing the self-checks, including sanity checks and then ‘communicat-
ing’ those activities towards the interaction partner. This communication bears a risk,
because sharing information about the checks performed and the message of ‘every-
thing all right’ provides the interaction partner with hunches whether one has actually
fully understood what needs to be done or not. Especially, as it often requires an even
more advanced and broader understanding of the tasks performed to not only execute
them, but to also be capable of deciding how to reasonably check their correctness.
Therefore, at this point of co-creation, the person ‘communicating’ is the trustor,
making oneself vulnerable to the other party, the trustee, by providing additional
information about its ability. If that person, the trustee, recognizes and appreciates
the checks performed as well as the other’s openness, he or she can become the
trustee by relying more on the other’s work the next time.
6.3.5 Co-creating Benevolence-Based Trust
Trustors and trustees can both engage in a process of co-creating benevolence-

based trust in hybrid virtual teams. Two concepts were identified, showing how
benevolence-based trust is created, even in hybrid virtual teams: (1) sharing virtual
social recognition and (2) showing emotional credibility. Both practices help the
members of hybrid virtual teams to overcome the cooperation problem by enabling
a trustful collaboration.
6.3.5.1 Sharing Virtual Social Recognition
The term (virtual) social recognition describes a virtual tool to show and receive
appreciation from the virtual peers. It refers to a special digital tool of GlobalTech,
hence the informants of GlobalMobility have not reported about this practice. Inter-
estingly, multiple informants at GlobalTech refer to their digital tool for social recog-
nition in respect to benevolent behavior of their peers. This tool enables a peer-to-peer
recognition comprising a mix of tangible rewards and social appreciation:
You can do various things to make benevolence an experience […] for example a colleague
of mine has given me a present, an internal one, a ‘Connected Recognition’, because he
felt supported by me, even despite the fact that I have meet him only once in person, he has
somehow sensed what I have done for him and his colleagues in the background, during
the restructuring. And now, he gave me officially a ‘Connected Recognition‘, that is kind of
an award and now I also get a voucher of 150 CHF […] with that appreciation, ah okay
it somehow reaches me. And there you can make a financial incentive or give a present.
(IF_24_GT1)
All informants of GlobalTech were familiar with the tool and have received and
granted social recognitions at least once within the last half a year. Another informant
explains, when he wants to socially recognize an achievement of a colleague, in the
tool he has to chose which of the four key pillars of GlobalTech’s HR mission
the colleagues’ activity complies to. Noteworthy is also, that his supervisor has to
‘release’, i.e. sign off, his recognition to a colleague, again creating visibility:
couple of subjects, under which we can recognize someone. So this is like, you can inspire
someone, you can work for the mutual benefit. So there are a couple of subject, under which
you can give someone a recognition. […] I can differentiate. […] The volume of it and the
reason, why you (..) recognize someone. […] we don’t have our own budget, under which
we can recognize someone. But there/of course, there is a budget. And also this recognition
needs to be approved by your manager at some level. (IF_30_GT5)
This tool is connected to the overall corporate HR mission. Thus it shows the indi-
vidual employees how benevolent behavior could look like and helps to translate this
into specific activities. And as it requires some degree of effort and risk taking from
the person who wants to recognize another person it can be linked to what I under-
stand as co-creating benevolence-based trust. Specifically, it starts with checking for
the peer’s activity, then recognizing it as extraordinary and remarkable, afterwards
linking the peer’s activity with GlobalTech’s mission and detailing in written form
why the peer shall be recognized. Afterwards, it is the supervisor who has to ‘review’
it, which also bears the risk of complication on the side of the person who recognizes.
Only then, the peer receives the social recognition and his/her achievement become
visible to other colleagues in the system.
Moreover, another informant form the Accounting team at Global Tech remembers
how she has received such a social recognition the week before the interview and
the way she describes it, the tool seems to help to reinforcing the ‘right behaviors’
among GlobalTech employees:
Well, like last week I received some recognition. You have this tool, connected recognition,
which/Well, if person really act beyond their standard, day-to-day responsibilities and if the
person is really delivering some strong results, you can use this tool, actually it’s a nice tool,
and write a note that/just to say, thank you very much for blablabla, and precisely describe,
what the person did. And you can also give a bit of money, like 100 Euro […] Depending on
the/probably the time, which person spent on the resolving issue. So I received that last/last
week actually from J. and S., who are Controllers for Austria, for clearing some in contacts
very old balances. And they said that, thank you for clearing balances of the Grand Ma/which
was really (smiling) very old balances. So that was in a way, that was part of my role, but/Well,
part of my role is making sure that our balance sheet, accounts are not materially misdated,
that we know the things, that I’m aware of the things and I’m confident with the things. I
was not confident with those balances. They were very aged. They were not really correct.
[…] And they appreciated that I did a lot of work, which was/which/I did some investigation,
which was/which required me some, you know, further, deeper analysis and I spent really
hours on this/on this statement. It was (laughing) a disaster. […] So I worked through all
those items and I cleaned the accounts. So I got this/this connected recognition award, which
is very good at this company, because you can/you know, you can built your brand, if we
talk about this, also in this way, that if you are getting a few connected recognitions from
important people for very good and measurable effects of your work, then, hm, this is also
a part of building your professional image. (IF_29_GT5)
This informant is pleased to know that the people around her are ‘seeing’ the work
she is doing, also getting things done which may be part of her role, but may beyond
the standard requirement:
From my point of view there are two sources. One you get is from your business partners […]
had a good relationship with/If I have a/Because we don’t have a/we don’t have a business
phone here, I mean, like cell phones, right. But I managed to build a good report with a
couple of Account Managers. So I gave them my private numbers. So when they/Because
they work sometimes very late hours, right. And I don’t mind, because I got used to it. So
sometimes I have/I’m online in the midnight, right, for instance. So if there is like urgent
thing, they can just call me or something like this to tell me about it. And if I am able to do
it, I will do it. So for instance, once the guy called me on Saturday. He told me that they are
sitting in the office and they are working on a deal, which needs to be presented to the client
on Monday. If and is there a possibility for me to be online with them. And I managed to do
it and then they/after the process they gave me the recognition. So this is one example, right.
So this is an example, when you are able to cooperate with them, doing not standard hours
even weekends, right. So this is one thing. Second thing is that/lately I got a recognition
from my manager, because I was involved in a project, which is not directly involved with my
daily duties, right. This is something extraordinary. And this is how they say “thank you”,
this one. So it’s good. It’s a nice thing. It’s a nice thing. (IF_30_GT5)
The social recognition has an effect beyond the ‘thank you’ for the performed
activity. The following quote shows, that one informant reflects whether he uncon-
sciously gives those colleagues, which gave him a social recognition in the past, an
advantage in their daily business interaction as well, for example when answering
the phone:
the likeliness that I will pick up the telephone faster, when they call me. But regarding the
content I am/I try to be very consistent. If he requires the decision from me or he, I go/I try to
deploy the same criteria. That is the objective part. What subjectively happens underneath,
who knows? (IF_26_GT3)
6.3.5.2 Showing Emotional Credibility
Demonstrating emotional credibility, so others can relate to is another way of co-

creating benevolence-based trust together. As benevolence can generally be associ-
ated with having no ‘hidden feelings’, the informants view the expression of their
feelings as an important component for relationship building in a virtual collabora-
tion. While in collocated teams initial emotional reactions of, for example, resent-
ments are a helpful cue for the interaction partner to figure out what the other party
currently ‘is up to’, those cues are not available to the same extent in virtual collabo-
ration. Hence, the initial emotional reactions (anger, joy) interaction partners usually
have access to when working face-to-face need to be ‘translated’ into the virtual
environment dominated by emails and Chats:
if something has gone down the drain, then I tell them that. I don’t mince matters. But also,
when it was extremely good, than I share my happiness […] they have told me, they like that
[…] know what I am up to and no matter was has happened, we work together and can step
in for help when I need it. (IF_2_GM1)
Honestly conveyed emotions give the virtual interaction a ‘human touch’. Such
an authenticity can stand for sincerity and being without malicious intent, all which
are aspects of a benevolent behavior. Here again, the practices of the trustor and the
trustee are strongly interrelated as the trustor makes himself vulnerable by being
honest and expects that the interaction partner—the trustee—will not exploit it to
his or her own benefit, but will rather use that as a cue for assessing the other one as
benevolent and trustworthy.
6.3.6 Co-creating Integrity-Based Trust
Trustors and trustees can additionally engage in a process of co-creating integrity-

based trust in hybrid virtual teams. When cooperative behavior is enabled by integrity-
based trust, it relates to the adherence to a similar set of principles (Mayer et al.
1995). One informant at GlobalTech exemplarily outlines that the ‘integrity-based
relationship’ with one of his colleagues working virtually together feels like as if
they would be acting as one person:
When you see that it comes seamlessly, I work with the Service Centre, the Service Cen-
tre partially with the employees, I with the employees, and we speak the same language.
(IF_24_GT1)
Noteworthy is, that this informant explicitly mentions that it is important to

be perceived as one team, despite the fact that the Shared Services team is geo-
graphically dispersed. Building on this, four concepts were identified, showing how
integrity-based trust is co-created, even in hybrid virtual teams: (1) establishing a joint
understanding of reliability, (2) admitting and forgiving mistakes, (3) maintaining
confidentiality and (4) agreeing on an appropriate level of gossip.
6.3.6.1 Establishing a Joint Understanding of Reliability
Integrity is to a great extend depending on reliability. But there is more to it than

just making promises and keeping them. It is a long way to build trust. Being more
complicated, at GlobalMobility and Global Tech a prerequisite for establishing a
reliable cooperation seems to be the precise specification of what is expected. This
rests on the fact that with more and more knowledge work being performed, there
is usually not a concise ‘one solution fits all needs way’ and every colleague might
have individual demands. Hence, this needs to be ‘negotiated’ between the individual
interaction partners. One informant exemplarily outlines, how he establishes a joint
basis of reliability. If, for example, nee colleagues are joining, he specifies together
with them what inputs he expects or requires from them to complete his tasks. Once
they agreed on this, the ‘threshold of reliability’ between them is defined and may
be different from colleague to colleague. He further notes, that over time with a
joint track record his requests need to be less detailed, as the others know anyways
what and how he is requiring their input and have ideally aligned their work. Having
experienced the other’s reliability, he also has to check less:
So if I don’t know the person, I have to contact him or her to discuss the/the thing, to discuss
the summary, which was/was prepared the person, this is like the regular action plan for the
person, which you/which is unknown to you, right. But when you have someone, then you can
just rely more on the information, which he provides you at the/at the first stage. So you don’t
need to contact him right after he leaves the message, because you can take the message
for granted […] after the thing is done, right, because he/he leaves the description, which
feeds your expectations. So you have all the information needed. And you don’t need to call
him, because you know that, based on the relationship you built with the person, that the
message, which he left, is trust-worthy, right. […] it’s for the person, with whom you build
the rapport, you build the trust. […] Because if you are working with someone from like/like
a couple of months, and you handle a lot of/a lot of stuff, similar stuff, you know, what he
expects from you, and you know, what/and he knows, what you expect from him, right […]
So if you have a person, with whom you built a good rapport and there is a relationship, so
the person knows, what needs to be done for you to feel comfortable in your working, right.
So during the call you probably would tell them, that they should put the information A, B,
C, D, right. And if they deliver it, it means that they/they want to fulfill your expectations.
And at the same time they also expect that their expectations will be also fulfilled, right. So
this is, how the/how we build the trust. (IF_30_GT5)
The informant describes, that important to him is ‘building rapport’, which impli-
cates that he and his interaction partners jointly establish a track record of reliable
work experiences to foster integrity-based trust together. What also may be the case is,
that when others realize that others can be trusted to keep their word on small things,
they will instinctively trust them with bigger ones. This becomes very important
when the stakes are getting higher.
6.3.6.2 Admitting and Forgiving Mistakes
Another insight I gained related to co-creating integrity-based trust in a virtual rela-

tionship is about one party demonstrating honesty and the other person reacting with
forgiveness. Both behavior patterns can be linked to an individuals’ integrity. This
is particularly interesting, because although organizations rely upon people to per-
form tasks in an accurate and efficient manner to accomplish intended goals, the
informants perceive honesty and forgiveness as important for their relationship. For-
giveness can be seen as a choice to accept the faults of the interaction partner in order
to look past them. This act allows that other person to regain his or her self-esteem
and therewith, the interaction partners are able to continue to work with one another
comfortably. One informant explains how she established a good relationship with
her interaction partners across geographic boundaries through each other’s openness
towards mistakes and forgiveness to solve the issues together:
but can also say: ‚Here is something not in good order’ or ‚I have made a mistake’. And that
has something to do with trust too. […] that I can say /that they know, they can approach me,
even if it was dump […] so, and now we do it together and then we can fix it. (IF_8_GM2)
A co-creation of the ground for integrity-based trust in that quotes becomes evi-
dent, as in the first step the person who has done a mistake—i.e. the trustor—does
a leap of faith by broaching it while expecting that the interaction partner—the
trustee—is fair and forgiving. With such a joint experience, in future interactions the
person, who forgave, will more likely expect that the interaction partner is honestly
addressing one’s mistakes. Therefore, the individual will assume that the other party
will not hide anything, hence such an open exchange about mistakes is token of social
patterns of trusting.
Another informant further elaborates, that she has had different experiences on
how her interaction partners reacted when she broached her mistakes. Some reacted
very pragmatic and solution-oriented and that helped to build integrity-based trust.
Likely, both sides will honestly talk about mistakes and forgive them in the future as
well. In contrast, she had also encountered that once she broached it, that some inter-
action partners reacted very harsh and ‘exaggerated’, from her standpoint ‘making a
mountain out of a molehill’. In consequence, having experienced such a destruction
of integrity-based trust, she will not openly share her mistakes with them anymore:
But I can also adhere to my mistakes, I have to admit. So when you have trust to the other
person, then you say: You sorry, I haven’t done it, sorry I didn’t know, I have forgotten about
it. And I think IF_24_GT1 has a similar approach. He knows, that I don’t do such things so
often, there is: Okay, then write an email and get in touch with that person. And you know
that, it is not the end of the world. At my previous work there I had a different experience
[…] when we have made a mistake in Poland, then there was huge drama […] and then you
don’t have so much trust in the other person. (IF_28_GT5)
Thus, dealing with mistakes can co-create integrity-based trust. The act of co-
creating has thereby two components: first, treating all mistakes the same way, which
means to not make things worse or better than they are depending on who has caused
it. Second, be pragmatic and solution-oriented, rather than start finger pointing.
To establish an environment to deal with mistakes openly and constructively is
key especially in the hybrid virtual team, because of its geographic dispersion it will
be more difficult than it is anyways with the knowledge work nowadays, to keep
track of each other. Thus, problems swept under the mat are more difficult to detect,
wherefore it seems to be of utmost importance that one person has first of all the
courage to disclose that there is a problem—in that case the trustor as this disclosure
presents a leap of faith. The colleagues can enable such courage and how they deal
with mistakes.
6.3.6.3 Maintaining Confidentiality
Generally, communication is key to establish a trustworthy relationship in hybrid

virtual teams. Yet, counter-intuitively, the informants describe that not disclosing all
information leads to integrity-based trust. One informant exemplarily outlines that
she recollects a relationship she has with a Swiss colleague, wherein she appreci-
ates that both have, potentially implicitly, agreed to not disclosure information. She
especially refers to information, which is not needed for them to continue with their
work, even though or maybe precisely because of that, she describes it as a trustful
relationship:
for some of the people this might be equal, like to trust to people and to disclose some
confidential information, which are not needed. So like I want to be clear that we need to
separate those two things. That the fact that I trust to IF_24_GT1 doesn’t mean that I can
disclose to him some information, which is not/which is not really for him and which/which
I shouldn’t be disclosing. IF_24_GT1 is HR Manager, so he is actually (laughing) very/very
full of the highly confidential information about the people, about various issues, about
salaries. So like/so don’t get me wrong. Trusting to each other doesn’t mean that I can
disclose everything, I have to tell exactly, what the person wants me to tell. I still have to
apply some/some code, which is like, if you cannot disclose some information […] It doesn’t
matter, how/if you trust to IF_24_GT1, that he wouldn’t tell to someone else, how much, I
don’t know, somebody is earning or something, that kind of information. […] This is has
nothing to do with this. So we trust to each other, but also in terms of non-disclosing some
information. (IF_29_GT5)
The same informant continues talking about an experience with another colleague.
She explains, that it is very important to determine which information a particular
interaction partner might need and in contrast, which information might be irrelevant
and hence should better be not disclosed:
it is irrelevant for me. It is irrelevant. […] It’s not, I ask them, okay, who is that, nobody ask,
it’s irrelevant, if we talk about/like for us, it’s irrelevant for us. If we talk about an issue,
we talk about the impact for each other. For me the impact was that some of the costs were
to be moved from Swiss Department under US Department, because some of the costs were
absorbed by US Team. So that was something important for me. But it’s irrelevant, whether
this is […] I cannot tell that, you know, that D. didn’t tell me the name, because he doesn’t
trust me. […] but there is some/some sort of conduct, like a code of conduct. […] But at the
same time there are some information about, as I told you, like people’s salaries, people, you
know, situations, which cannot be disclosed, that’s it, which shouldn’t be disclosed. So/Yes,
so you have to appreciate, that some information are just not/they should have their own
canal and they should, you know/they shouldn’t be going all over the world. (IF_29_GT5)
Both parties successfully figure out together what the non-disclosure of ‘sensitive’
information means to them and their relationship. And not disclosing all information
can be part of the co-creation of integrity-based trust.
6.3.6.4 Agreeing on an Appropriate Level of Gossip
Another aspect, of co-creating integrity-based trust, is about denouncing or gos-

siping about other colleagues. While some people might interpret one’s own or
another party’s chitchat as a sign of informal communication to build a relationship,
the majority of informants I talked to explicitly associated such a communication
as improper behavior hampering the development of integrity-based trust, as one
informant exemplarily outlines:
Yes, the one thing is the way how you react when you address a question or a problem.
Because of the reaction you feel, it is concerning a solution […] or is it about exposing
somebody, a person or a process […] when I have a conversation with a person and I feel
the integrity in the moment at most maybe how the person behaves integer towards other
people. So, when I not only hear gossip during a conversation […] of course based upon the
responses (laughs) you can guide it a bit or by challenging it. I mean, because of my role I’m
confronted with a lot of gossip, also on a day-to-day basis. So my goal is always (laughs)
that I keep the gossip as low as or as constructive as possible. (IF_24_GT1)
Thus, it is a social process of ‘negotiating’ what behavior may be appropriate and

what might be misplaced in respect to building a relationship with a colleague, such
as the example of the gossiping shows.
6.4 Strategy of Virtual Peer Monitoring
Peer monitoring is a third way to foster the cooperation in hybrid virtual teams in
Shared Services Organizations. The findings about the social process of peer moni-
toring in hybrid virtual teams are twofold: first, the informants of the hybrid virtual
teams in the Shared Services Organizations of GlobalMobility and GlobalTech have

to cope with a challenging context compiled of faultlines through distance, discon-
nection through communication technology and discontinuity through temporality of
team composition. Under these circumstances, from time to time the informants feel
the need to resort to alternative strategies besides identity constructing and trusting to
ensure a successful cooperation with their interaction partners. One example, which
the informants frequently mention to ensure cooperation, is the strategy of peer mon-
itoring. Second, I discovered the execution as well as perception of peer monitoring is
determined in a social process between the controller and the controllee. Comparable
to the understanding of trusting, the social process of peer monitoring involves two
parties and requires an adaptation towards the interaction partner. Such adaptation
allows to trigger functional instead of dysfunctional dynamics of peer monitoring in
hybrid virtual teams. More precisely, when controller and controllee have established
a basis for peer monitoring together, peer monitoring can be beneficial in helping to
overcome the cooperation problem of hybrid virtual teams. The findings regarding
virtual peer monitoring can be clustered into (1) computer-aided monitoring and (2)
establishing a positive peer monitoring culture.
6.4.1 Computer-Aided Monitoring
Virtual peer monitoring differs significantly from traditional face-to-face peer mon-
itoring due to the reliance on information and communication technology to keep
track of fellow team members. The findings show that computer-aided peer monitor-
ing is possible. In order to ensure the cooperation to flourish and that everything is
running as expected, team members resort to two different types of media: (1) using
synchronous media and (2) using asynchronous media.
6.4.1.1 Using Synchronous Media for Natural Symbol Sets and High
Transmission Velocity
The informants’ motives to use synchronous media seem to be driven by their need
to ensure or even enforce immediate cooperation of their virtual interaction partners.
To resort to the telephone (synchronous media) to contact a co-worker seems to be
a common practice of virtual peer monitoring to foster cooperation. Interestingly,
the informants describe situations, where they resort to synchronous media to (1)
accomplish an immediate transmission of their message to their interaction partner
and (2) they prefer voice as a natural symbol set over writing in order to trigger a
reaction right away. One informant at GlobalTech describes her experience about
colleagues sometimes not answering to her written inquiries, even if a deadline to
complete a task is approaching. In such situations, she choses to call the other person,
thus using synchronous media to stress the urgency to reply and to become active.
She does that instead of sending out just another reminder via email (asynchronous
6.4 Strategy of Virtual Peer Monitoring 175
media). She adds, that she has to resort to this practice of virtual peer monitoring
regularly to ensure cooperation:
But if I’m wait/(…) just to speed something or if the deadline is coming, then I would be
rather contacting by phone or calling to someone rather than writing, you know, fifth email
(laughing quietly) during one week with kind reminder. You know, I prefer doing that in this
way. So it’s really often. (IF_29_GT5)
Consistent with that, another informant states, that when something is urgent she
prefers to use synchronous media like the telephone in order to solve the matter right
away:
Because if it is something urgent, then I pick up the telephone and call him – I call him right
away. (IF_28_GT5)
Moreover, another informant outlines, that some of the members of his team even
expect him to monitor the work of them. Thus, he experienced, that when he calls his
fellow team mates instantaneously assume that some of the work they have delivered
is incorrect. So, using synchronous media with the benefit of a high transmission
velocity and the use natural symbol sets such as voice for suited well to clarify
questions or mistakes together:
So they are like, if you call or not, if you call or not, if you call or not, right. And if you call
them, then they know, that something is wrong. (IF_30_GT5)
6.4.1.2 Using Asynchronous Media for Reprocessability
The informants’ motive for their use of asynchronous media is the reprocessability of
information at a later time. Thereby, the informants of both companies emphasize the
benefits of the ‘classic email’ as an example of asynchronous media to peer monitor
each other virtually. For instance, they refer to emails containing booking orders
and accessing their information system to check individual transactions performed
by co-workers. The informants further describe, that the high synchronicity of calls
or instant messaging is not always appropriate, nor is face-to-face communication
helpful in certain situations, where either the information is difficult to grasp verbally,
e.g. complex booking orders with lines of numbers, or the information needs to be
available later on as well. So, some of the information, which is shared between
the co-workers, needs to be reprocessable to function as a backup proof in written
form. One informant explicates that she uses emails or screenshot to obtain such
reprocessable evidence:
to have written confirmation of something or just to have some screenshot from some system
or, I don’t know, something, then I would be like more writing emails. (IF_29_GT5)
The same informant further elaborates on the necessity to obtain evidence of

certain business transactions. Thus, for the task-related collaboration the email is
irreplaceable for their virtual peer monitoring:
(Face-to-face) it’s irrelevant, because if you really need backup, like if you need to copy-paste
your email or if you need backup for some reconciliation, if you need email, it doesn’t matter,
if you are meeting face-to-face, talking about the issue or using electronic conferencing or
using email. You still need email. (IF_29_GT5)
Similarly, another colleague at GlobalTech states, that it is possible to exchange

the details of the transaction synchronously via phone, but ultimately she requires
an email to complete a booking or payment:
Either it is easier to write an email or to call somebody and then repeat it via email, so
that you have the written form for it as well. For example, when we want to do a payment.
(IF_28_GT5)
One informant at GlobalMobility outlines, that he uses asynchronous media to

peer monitor his fellow team members in Germany virtually. More precisely, if a
colleague sends him a proposal for a booking via email, he always takes the time to
verify and double check the data in their information system to figure out whether
the provided information is correct. Such checks would not be conveniently possible
with synchronous media:
Yes, when I receive for example a booking, a proposal booking […] So I receive from the
local, just make this correction on this account and this account with this amount. So only
in these situations I check. So I go on that account to check if the amount is exactly the one
from the email […] I like to verify. If I get for example a proposal for a booking or so and
some data (unv.) I like always to checking the system […] But no, sometimes you discover
also some later mistakes or so and it’s better to double check. From my point of view it’s
better to double check. (IF_12_GM3)
In consistency, one informant at GlobalTech prefers to check the business trans-

actions in their information system, who booked what and whether something is
missing:
I need to check a few things in Oracle, who is booking, to make sure that things are/you
know, that we are not missing anything. And the best case always is to check in Oracle, as I
did here/and to check, who is posting to this/to those accounts. Here you have account, here
you have balances. (IF_29_GT5)
Next to the information system, which is the lynchpin for support functions such
as Accounting, one expert recommends a virtual team room as another possibility
to monitor virtually in an asynchronous way. Such rooms are a good way for team
members to keep track of what has been done so far as a team:
such teams/virtual team rooms exist, where you can track, where they have noted down, what
they have done […] and I think, when it is meant like that, it can be quite good. (Expert_5_VT)
Finally, one informant reports about her experience with a computer-aided mon-
itoring system for mistake tracking. The system required here to digitally report all
mistakes in a tracking system, including a detailed fault analysis:
So we also had a system there. All the time when we have made a mistake […] we needed to
open a claim and write for example: what was not right, who was the requestor, what date
and what the problem was; and how you can prevent it in the future. (IF_28_GT5)
6.4.2 Establishing a Positive Monitoring Culture
The members of the hybrid virtual team need to be attentive to the monitoring cul-
ture within their team. Thereby, a positive monitoring culture is determined by two
elements: (1) having the right intentions and (2) creating a culture for monitoring
and feedback.
6.4.2.1 Having the Right Intentions (Need-Based-Monitoring)
The intention to monitor can be need-based, which means, that an individual is moti-
vated by the will to support the fellow team members. One expert exemplarily outlines
that the intention to monitor is of prime importance for the positive perception of
monitoring. She recommends making the intentions explicit to prevent misunder-
standings. Some team members are motivated to monitor the team members in a
positive sense, in order to be aware of what is accomplished so far:
that I the team cont/in the positive sense of control, what has happened already, what can
I see, what everyone else has done […] what is important is the intention behind it. And
it must be made explicit, because the people arrive there with different understandings.
(Expert_5_VT)
One of the GlobalMobility informants describes, that he keeps a wary eye on

the business transactions, which are of peculiar interest fort he management. He
explicates, that he wants to avert the danger of mistakes being done by his team
members at the Eastern European location. He states his motivation to avoid that
somebody gets into trouble:
When it is about a project, whatever, the (unv.) goes, where I know, there are the, whatever,
the result goes all the way to the highest circles (unv.) than I have a look there again as a
precaution of course. And when something is not in good order, and I realize it early enough,
then it goes through the unofficial channels to the colleague, who is accountable, in the
Service Centre […] simply to safeguard myself and to safeguard the colleagues in Romania
[…] Yes, I don’t let anyone walk right into a trap. (IF_2_GM1)
Another informant similarly describes his motivation to peer monitor and correct
the work of fellow team members with his will to avoid mistakes in the course of
task execution, but also to avoid that somebody else notifies a lapse of one of his
teammates:
I have corrected it and afterwards I have it ex post simply said: Have done a correction or
have entered it differently. The wanted it up to there and there. And eventually, when it is
good, I know that it comes again, the date, I will say: Watch out, we are at the point. Pay
attention, we have to do this and this […] But I spare him the call of someone, who is saying:
Äh, everything was wrong. (IF_26_GT3)
Thus, peer monitoring can help to detect opportunities to assist poorly performing
team members, and when it is necessary, team members are able to step in and
compensate for the poor performance of others and thus ensure cooperation.
6.4.2.2 Creating a Culture for Monitoring and Feedback
The general monitoring culture has an influence on how the monitoring is perceived
and whether it helps to solve the cooperation problem. Multiple informants at Glob-
alMobility and GlobalTech stress the importance of pragmatically dealing with mis-
takes in order to enable a positive monitoring culture. In such a culture, it has to
be accepted that mistakes happen and that their identification offer the chance to
correct the mistakes. Ideally, monitoring to detect mistakes even can be a learning
experience, which is shared as a team. To bolster up the argument about the positive
monitoring culture, one of the GlobalTech informants explains, that he promotes the
understanding that mistakes are simply part of work. Only the ratio between correct
work and mistakes has to be reasonable:
My favorite saying is: Who works a lot, makes a lot of mistakes. We only have to watch
out for the ratio […] if 80 per cent of the decisions I make are right, I am good. You have
to/have to assume also that oneself is doing many mistakes. So, that’s why, 80 per cent of
my decisions are right/hopefully right, 20 per cent are properly wrong. It would be worse,
if 100 per cent are right, only way to late. So that is the other thing, which you can do. You
can of course invest. And some decisions you will never get right. So. That’s why I convey a
sense of that one can make mistakes, that that is okay. So you have to expect, that everyone
is doing mistakes. And I said: who works a lot, makes a lot of mistakes. (IF_26_GT3)
Two informants explain, that the advantage of the business environment they are
operating in is, that all mistakes are correctable. Realizing this as a team is also critical
for pragmatically dealing with mistakes and to establish a respective monitoring and
feedback culture within the team:
I would say 98 per cent of the mistakes are correctable. (IF_2_GM1)
Here you can correct almost everything. There is little, which here is irreparable, really
important things. That’s why, we are in a low-risk-environment. There you can do quite a
lot of mistakes. Nobody comes to grief. (IF_26_GT3)
One informant mentions, that the monitoring of his work through his peers can
be motivating for him to do a correct job:
Maybe more effort, because they know, that somebody is checking again and we don’t want
to have mistakes. (IF_13_GM3)
One informant explains, that noticing peers’ results, checking them and providing
feedback can be very informative for the interaction partner. It may satisfy their
desire to know whether the information has actually been received and if it has been
processed successfully:
I would say, that they are happy, because that something is going over with their matter […]
Because the worst scenario for them is have no action on their matter, because they have
their deadlines, right. So if they just bring the matter in the front of you and you are not
willing to pick this up or you ignore it, then they get frustrated. So I assume, that they are
more comfortable, when you contact them on the minor issues, but at least they know, that
there is something going on. So they can fix it and they know, that it’s on, right. (IF_30_GT5)
Some of the informants describe, that peer monitoring can also provide a learning
opportunity and some co-workers appreciate to be checked, because they are some-
times insecure if they have completed their task correctly. If a peer monitors and
identifies a mistake, the interaction partner can analyze it together and learn from it
for the next time:
Because the realize also, somebody is engaging with it and they sometimes appeal that
someone controls, because they are insecure. It is also so (unv.) not right, that it doesn’t
happen again the next time and they are thankful for that, that you have identified a mistake
and they, they also learn from it and next time will hopefully make it better. (IF_6_GM1)
Similarly, another informant shares his experience that some of his co-workers
expect to be called when a mistake has been identified. They are eager to learn and
if they are not able to pick up the phone they will immediately call back. Thus, the
benefit of peer monitoring is, that it allows others to learn and improve what they
have done wrong:
Being very responsive. They will call you back immediately, if they were not able to pick
the phone or chat. […] So they don’t know, what to do. And they wanna learn something,
so they wanna fix it. And that’s why they expect the call from you or something like this.
(IF_30_GT5)
Moreover, one informant explains, that some of her peers are thankful for her
monitoring their work, because it makes the overall correctness of their work more
likely:
how I would also do it, in the reversed direction, with the fashion and thankfulness, and with
“Yes, is okay, that you have had a look again. Then I am at least sure, that I have it correct.
Four eyes see more than two.” […] and the feeling: more certainty. That two people are
mistakes at the same time or the chance, that two people think wrong, is lower than only one
doing it. (IF_2_GM1)
Related to that, in order to establish a culture for monitoring, some of the infor-
mants underline the benefits of peer monitoring, for example the better quality of the
team outputs:
I find it positive, that there is a second or third person, or even fourth person, which also
has a look. So I see more safety, especially when two people are checking something, I see
a higher quality as a result and I don’t see it as control or test, whether we have done good
work. (IF_13_GM3)
But the culture for peer monitoring and feedback needs to be jointly defined
as a team. One informant explains, that the controllees’ reactions differ. Some do
appreciate her peer monitoring and others feel offended:
The one person is happy about it. He is glad, because he says, okay, he has not felt so secure
anyways and gives thanks and does not do it like that the next time. Yes, and the other may
feel offended and says: “Thank you that you have found it.” And the next time, he does it
again. So that is again the difference of the quality of people. (IF_6_GM1)
Similarly, another informants adds her experience from the perspective of the
controllee, describing that some of her colleagues have difficulties to pragmatically
deal with their mistakes and take it personally rather than professionally:
We have strong people also on working for a small legal entity, who, okay, I screw up, okay, it
can be fixed, no problem. But we have also people who are shyer and they take it personally.
And sometimes it takes time and a lot of energy from us to go in discussions with that person
and to explain that, okay, it’s not personal, everything is okay, your mistake/you did a mistake,
but it can be fixed and so on. But it’s a lot of energy to get over it. (IF_16_GM3)
Reference
Chapter 7
Discussion
The purpose of the study presented in this book is to provide theoretical and practical
insights about the contextual challenges, which members of hybrid virtual teams in
Shared Services Organizations experience, how they use strategies and practices of
identity constructing, trusting and virtual peer monitoring to overcome the cooper-
ation problem and how technology may support or hamper the team members’ use
of those three strategies and the respective practices. In this chapter, I will discuss
(1) the sociomaterial impact, which technology may have on the deployment of the
strategies and respective practices to foster cooperation by comparing the media
capabilities of the available technology at GlobalMobility and GlobalTech. Further,
I derive (2) theoretical implications from the findings, (3) practical implications to
capture the expressions of the contextual challenges and practices to overcome poten-
tial cooperation problems within teams and (4) empirical implications, limitations
and directions for future research.
7.1 The Sociomaterial Impact of Technology

on the Deployment of Strategies and Practices to Foster
Cooperation
The study presented in this book provides empirical insights to the research question
about how technology does enable members of hybrid virtual teams to use identi-
fication, trust and peer monitoring to overcome the cooperation problem. With the
virtual teamwork being characterized by the team members’ reliance on commu-
nication technology to interact with each other, it is important to better understand
which impact technology may have on the way the hybrid virtual team members can
deploy the identified strategies and practices to foster cooperation. The comparison
of the two companies—GlobalMobility and GlobalTech—offers a comprehensive
picture on whether and how technology can help or hamper the team members’ use
of the strategies of identity constructing, trusting and virtual peer monitoring. I have

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34300-2_7
182 7 Discussion
purposefully sampled GlobalTech, which is a technology-driven company belonging

to the ‘new economy’, to compare with GlobalMobility, a representative ‘old econ-
omy’ industry company, to find out how the identified strategies and practices for
cooperation interrelate with the available communication technology. Therewith the
sampling of those two companies was conducted according to the material aspects
of technology.
The comparison of the two companies revealed a significant difference of the
communication technology used by the members of the hybrid virtual teams on a
daily basis. At GlobalTech, the team members can quite naturally rely on electronic
conferencing to collaborate with each other for almost every communication (“we
use electronic conferences for every set-up-meeting that we have” (IF_25_GT2)).
Moreover, ‘making a phone call’ at GlobalTech actually means to have a ‘one-to-one
video conferencing’ (“You can log in yourself in this phone and you can/you see the
person like in here” (IF_29_GT5)).
In contrast, the communication technology at GlobalMobility is not as advanced
as at GlobalTech. GlobalMobility employees have to rely on more traditional types
of communication technology, like email or telephone (“60 to 70% through Email
and the rest through telephone” (IF_4_GM1)). Moreover, during the interviews and
the participant observation, I discovered that some of the colleagues at the Eastern
European location of GlobalMobility do not even have a ‘standard’ landline phone at
their workplace (“not every co-worker has a landline phone” (IF_5_GM1)). Because
only the managers have corporate mobile phones, it means, that some colleagues at
GlobalMobility cannot be reached directly with a phone call to have a synchronous
communication with each other. This extreme example of media (non-) availabil-
ity nicely highlights the difference of the available communication technology at
GlobalMobility and GlobalTech.
Table 7.1 illustrates the available media at GlobalMobility and GlobalTech (sec-
ond and third columns from the left) and links each of these media to specific capabil-
ities (columns A–D). The depicted capabilities have been selected from the Media
Synchronicity Theory, because they are essential for pursuing the three proposed
strategies to foster cooperation, as I will outline hereafter.
Table 7.1 and the supplemental research findings of the study presented in this
book contribute to the Information Systems research by expanding the Media Syn-
chronicity Theory developed by Dennis and colleagues (2008). First, I apply this
prominent IS theory in a real-life setting, which only a few other scholars did before
(e.g. Tenzer and Pudelko 2016). Second, while the original theory focuses on the com-
munication performance to specific outcomes, I integrate the interaction processes
of the users into the theory. Hence, I upgrade the Media Synchronicity Theory with a
sociomaterial perspective of technology at the workplace (Orlikowski 2007; Iveroth
2011) and establish a link between the media capabilities (material aspect) and the
three identified strategies to foster cooperation (social aspect): (1) identity construct-
ing, (2) trusting and (3) virtual peer monitoring. It is noteworthy, that each of the
discussed links is exclusively based upon informants’ quotes with explicit reference
to media usage. Therewith, it rests upon their individual experience in their daily
Table 7.1 Comparison of media at GlobalMobility and GlobalTech and their capabilities to support the strategies and practices for cooperation
GlobalMobility GlobalTech A B C D
(old economy) (new economy) Informal communication Sharing visual Synchronicity Reprocessability
cues/visibility
Face-to-face (X) (X) High High High Low
Video conference X Low-high Medium-high High Low
Video phone call X Low-high Medium-high High Low
Electronic conferencing X Low-high Medium-high Low-medium High (if recorded)
Telephone conference (X) X Low-high Low High Low
Telephone one-on-one (X) X Medium-high Low High Low
Sending voice mails X Low Low Low High
Instant messaging (X) X Medium-high Low Low-medium Medium-high
Emails X X Low Low Low High
7.1 The Sociomaterial Impact of Technology on the Deployment …
Fax X X Low Low Low High

Shared documents X X Low Low Low High
Source Own Illustration, based on Dennis et al. (2008: 589)
Note X = available; (X) = partially available; no sign = not available
183
184 7 Discussion
use of technology at work and shows how team members deploy different media for
their different needs during their cooperation:
(1) Identity constructing: The strategy of identity constructing comprises two prac-
tices, which the informants explicitly linked to media: first, fostering informal
virtual communication and second, sharing visual cues to feel connected. Media
supporting these practices are helpful for constructing a common identity in
hybrid virtual teams:
• First, informal virtual communication can be fostered using a variety of media
(see column A). Doing so-called ‘virtual coffee breaks’ together with your
dispersed team members works best when using synchronous media, like
telephone or video conference (see column C). As informal communication
is beneficial for relationship building and creating shared experiences, the
more members of the hybrid virtual team are participating, the better it may
be for the construction of a shared team identity. Therefore, media allowing
multiple team members to join in, like video or telephone conferences, should
be preferred over one-on-one exchanges. Nevertheless, the informants have
also described situations of bilateral informal communication via telephone,
which helped them to build a relationship.
In consequence, based upon the insights from the field study, the sometimes
not available suitable media in a given situation was not perceived as a prob-
lem, but rather that such informal communication in the virtual collaboration
requires assigning dedicated timeslots for it.
• Second, sharing visual cues to feel connected is a practice, which requires
media that enables visibility (see column B). The informants at GlobalTech
frequently use video phone calls to communicate with their co-workers. Con-
sequently, they have easy access to visual cues of their interaction partner. In
contrast, at GlobalMobility such media to share visual cues synchronously is
not available. Some of the informants express, that they have shared private
pictures with their dispersed team members via email and also welcomed
a new functionality in their email program, providing a picture next to the
senders’ email address.
In consequence, the available media at GlobalTech was perceived as a facili-
tator for sharing visual cues and thus for identity constructing. In contrast, the
not available media to share visual cues at GlobalMobility was perceived as
hampering. Nevertheless, the GlobalMobility employees used workarounds
to ensure some kind of exchange of visual cues.
(2) Trusting: Trusting as the second strategy for cooperation comprises the fol-
lowing practices, which the informants explicitly linked with media: first, the
trustor profiling the potential trustee; second, the trustee signalizing its abil-
ity, for instance its technical savvyness, and third, the sharing of virtual social
recognition:
7.1 The Sociomaterial Impact of Technology on the Deployment … 185
• First, for the trustor’s practice to create a profile of the potential trustee, infor-
mants have been actively asking and listening to personal (informal) informa-
tion of the trustee using the telephone (see column A). The visual cues are a
further component for the profiling of the trustee and are more likely available
at GlobalTech (see column B). For instance, GlobalTech informants describe
how they use video phone calls to check out the trustee’s surroundings, when
he or she works from home. At GlobalMobility, they also use telephones to
conduct the practice of profiling, but as mentioned before, visual cues cannot
be shared.
In consequence, the absence of visual cues at GlobalMobility can make the
trustor’s assessment of the trustee’s trustworthiness more difficult, but not
impossible. Moreover, informal personal communication in the virtual col-
laboration requires assigning dedicated timeslots for it, which is rather per-
ceived as hampering the trust development, independently from the available
media.
• Second, to demonstrate technical savvyness, the trustee needs to be profes-
sional in media choice, ensuring a fit between media capabilities and needs
of communication. Thus, the greater the pool of available media, the more
this practice can become a source of trouble for the trustee to succeed. At
both companies the informants describe the importance of picking the right
media in their day-to-day communication with the members of their hybrid
virtual team as very important. This means, for example, using email for task-
related work, chat for quick inquiries and telephone or video phone for per-
sonal questions. In addition, the technical savvyness includes the netiquette
for interaction partner’s availability and video conferencing—both practices,
where the GlobalTech informants need to cater for the needs of their inter-
action partner. If they miss to do so, they fail to signalize their ability-based
trustworthiness.
In general, the informants describe that asynchronous media (see column C)
offers them to signalize their ability easier, because they can work at their
own speed and in case of a lack of knowledge they can prepare questions,
reach out to additional sources or approach other colleagues—all activities,
which they are usually unable to perform when using synchronous media.
• Third, the practice of sharing virtual social recognition is part of co-creating
benevolence-based trust among members of a hybrid virtual team. Only Glob-
alTech informants have elaborated this practice, as it refers to a dedicated
web-based tool available at GlobalTech, a tool not available at GlobalMobil-
ity. This tool for operationalizing social recognition between co-workers can
be perceived as an add-on tool to the above-depicted media (not included in
Table 7.1).
In consequence, companies, which offer their employees in hybrid virtual
teams multiple, more advanced media technology may facilitate the use of
certain practices to foster cooperation.
186 7 Discussion
(3) Virtual peer monitoring: The third strategy for cooperation is about members of
hybrid virtual teams monitoring each other. The informants at both companies
have explicitly differentiated their practices to foster cooperation into the fol-
lowing: first, using synchronous media and second, using asynchronous media
to monitor their peers virtually (see column C). Interestingly, GlobalMobility
and GlobalTech informants made consistent descriptions of their virtual peer
monitoring practices in relation to the media fit:
• First, the informants deploy the practice of using synchronous media for
natural symbol sets and high transmission velocity in situations characterized
by an urgency to reply, wherefore the synchronicity of media matters most.
Thus, the informants usually pick up the telephone for a one-on-one call
to, for example, figure out the interaction partner’s work status or stress the
importance of task completion due to an approaching deadline.
• Second, the informants at GlobalMobility and GlobalTech resort to asyn-
chronous media, when the reprocessability of information is a key require-
ment for their communication (see column D). Thus, they stress the impor-
tance of receiving information via email to have an evidence and backup for
later.
These links between different media and the strategies and practices for coopera-
tion in hybrid virtual teams are based upon the data collection during the field research
at GlobalMobility and GlobalTech. From a material perspective, it was interesting
to see, that even state-of-the-art communication technology still has its weaknesses.
For example, during the observation and the immersion at GlobalTech, I noticed that
the transmission signal went down or the connection was cut off sometimes when
members of the teams utilized advanced electronic or video conferencing systems.
Therewith, it seems as if even in global IT companies the employees have to regularly
cope with interruptions of their audio or visual computer-mediated communication.
Hence, regardless of how advanced the technology may be, the risk of technology
causing ‘disconnections’ in the wider sense within the team is still very high and
even such technology cannot offer a face-to-face-like experience across geographic
distance.
Interestingly though, from a sociomaterial perspective, the comparison is very
insightful as it shows that team members from the ‘old economy’ (GlobalMobility)
as well as the ‘new economy’ (GlobalTech) can apply all the strategies for coopera-
tion related to identity construction, trusting and virtual peer monitoring in different
manifestations. Hence, it does not require the lastest communication technology and
members of hybrid virtual teams in companies equipped with comparable media like
GlobalMobility can also foster their cooperation by deploying strategies of identity
constructing, trusting and virtual peer monitoring. Even though, at GlobalMobility
it might be less convenient for the team members to undertake the different practices
compared with the convenience of GlobalTech, it is still possible. Especially, as the
informants of GlobalMobility developed workarounds to deploy practices despite
the technological shortcomings, e.g. sending pictures via email for visual cues. And
notwithstanding, the informants at GlobalTech need to also actively engage in the
7.1 The Sociomaterial Impact of Technology on the Deployment … 187
strategies and respective practices to foster cooperation as well. In sum, the avail-
ability of the advanced media itself is not sufficient for the teams to successfully
cooperate. State-of-the-art communication technology can facilitate, but not ensure,
identity constructing, trusting and virtual peer monitoring in hybrid virtual teams.
All individual members of hybrid virtual teams have to be aware that it still requires
them to actively engage in practices to overcome the cooperation problem in their
teams.
Hence, it is important to have a combined perspective on technology, comprising
the material and the social aspects of it. For instance, I found hunches that GlobalTech
primarily pays attention to what technology is capable of to offer for hybrid virtual
teams from a material perspective, while at GlobalMobility it was ambiguous if any
and if so which of the two perspectives on technology mattered. Concluding, these
insights about whether technology helps or hampers the deployment of strategies and
practices to foster cooperation, illustrate that it is useful to take in a sociomaterial
perspective of technology in hybrid virtual teams.
7.2 Theoretical Implications
In sum, the findings of the study presented in this book delineate a comprehensive
picture on how the members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organi-
zations experience contextual challenges, which may lead to cooperation problems.
Further, it expounds the strategies and respective practices used by the team members
to foster cooperation. Hence, I (1) discuss the numerous theoretical insights about
hybrid virtual teams and/or Shared Services teams obtained by contextualizing the
challenges, which the members of such teams experience. Then, (2), I discuss the
theoretical implications regarding the strategies and practices to foster cooperation
and how these novel findings contribute to the existing literature.
7.2.1 The Importance of Contextualizing Challenges

for Teamwork
The findings from the interviews during the field research and the expert interviews
illustrate the importance to identify potential contextual reasons to understand the
challenges, which the members of teams may encounter. Thereby, the study pre-
sented in this book allows to discuss about (1) the necessity to conduct (qualitative)
field study to contextualize challenges for teamwork, (2) the expression and com-
plexity of location-based faultlines in hybrid virtual teams, (3) the advantage of a
more nuanced twofold understanding of technology in virtual teams, (4) the need to
develop a sociomaterial perspective of the contextual challenges in Shared Services
188 7 Discussion
Organizations and (5) the application of the theories related to the shadow of the
future and the norm of reciprocity to a novel context.
First, the study presented in this book contributes to the literature on coopera-
tion in social dilemma situations by showcasing different contextual challenges as
reasons for withholding effort. Withholding of effort describes that team members
provide less than maximum possible due to motivation and circumstance (Kidwell
and Bennett 1993: 430). This study moves beyond the prevalent focus on motivational
reasons for withholding effort (e.g. Latané 1981; Karau and Williams 1993) by pro-
viding comprehensive insights on the circumstantial reason for withholding effort.
The identified contextual challenges originating from the context of hybrid virtual
teams in Shared Services Organizations can be categorized as faultlines through dis-
tance, disconnection through communication technology and discontinuity through
temporality of team composition. Therewith, the study presented in this book expands
the small number of existing laboratory experiments, which introduced distance and
technology as two environmental reasons for cooperation problems in virtual teams
(e.g. Chidambaram and Tung 2005), by enriching them with circumstantial, i.e.
contextual, elements of a qualitative field setting.
Second, the work location revealed to be very important for the emergence of
faultlines within the hybrid virtual teams under study, a finding that is consistent
with previous research on faultlines in teams (e.g. Cramton and Hinds 2004; Polzer
et al. 2006). However, previous research mostly looked at global teams distributed
across continents (e.g. Hinds et al. 2014), yet the study presented in this book shows,
that members of hybrid virtual teams from different locations in the same country
encounter similar cooperation problems as if they would be dispersed across con-
tinents. Hence, this study contributes to growing body of research, which does not
underestimate the importance of small(er) distance (Siebdrat et al. 2009). Hence,
contextual challenges related to faultlines through distance may not only arise in
virtual teams spanning across national borders, different time zones and comprising
members, who speak a different mother tongue, but also within hybrid virtual teams
with dispersed members within the same region or country.
Moreover, the findings show as well, that the contextual challenges related to
the location of hybrid virtual teams find expression through the absence of sponta-
neous encounters and informal talk. And as the interaction with the collocated team
members is different than with the dispersed colleagues, subgroup-based faultlines
emerge. Sarbaugh-Thomspon and Feldman (1998: 692) suggest that a missing infor-
mal and spontaneous communication may lead to “decreased perceptions of connect-
edness and community”. Spontaneous communication is beneficial for the interaction
between different individuals, because it helps to build social ties (Festinger et al.
1950) and makes everyone more attentive to the mood and state of others (Olson
et al. 2002). Through its informality, such a communication might even strengthen
the interpersonal bonds between dispersed co-workers (Nardi and Whittaker 2002).
Because of its casual nature, individuals usually perceive those encounters as more
convenient and joyful, which increases the likelihood that such communication will
occur (Kraut et al. 2002; Kiesler and Cummings 2002). Yet, as the findings of Glob-
alMobility and GlobalTech show, in the virtual context the communication is usually
7.2 Theoretical Implications 189
more planned and formal. Then, the individuals often feel obliged to stick to pre-
determined topics and timeframes (Olson and Olson 2000). Therewith, the study
presented in this book contributes to the research about location-based faultlines by
identifying that the absence of spontaneous encounters and informal talk are expres-
sions of differences, which are easy to observe. Hence, these additional salient cues
trigger or accelerate the emergence of faultlines and thus the formation of subgroups
in hybrid virtual teams. Furthermore, this study provides hunches for the fact, that
the perception of such location-based faultlines is stronger in hybrid virtual teams
compared to purely virtual teams with all its members being distributed across dif-
ferent locations. Because if someone is the only one of a team in his or her location
(e.g. IF_24_GT1 and IF_27_GT4), while other members of the hybrid virtual team
are collocated and therewith have the possibility for more informal spontaneous and
regular face-to-face communication, he or she may have feelings of being excluded
from the team.
Third, the study presented in this book shows with the comparison of Global-
Mobility and GlobalTech (see Sect. 7.1) that not only the extent of dependency on
communication technology has an influence on the cooperation in hybrid virtual
teams, but also the type of communication technology. Therewith, the study expands
existing models about hybrid virtual teams, which focused solely on the degree
of dependency on communication technology (e.g. Griffith et al. 2003; Fiol and
O’Connor 2005), by empirically demonstrating, that a more nuanced understanding
of the contextual challenges related to technology is required for virtual teamwork,
i.e. the degree of reliance and the available types of communication technology matter
for the interaction in virtual teams.
Fourth, despite the fact that Shared Services Organizations have risen greatly
in relevance, researchers have not investigated this organizational form sufficiently
(Becker et al. 2009: 1). Additionally, researchers suggest that a comprehensive
overview of the specific challenges of Shared Services Organizations is missing
(Knol et al. 2014: 92). With the study presented in this book, I shed some light on
Shared Services’ challenges and thus start to fill this research gap. Thereby, I elaborate
in detail about two contextual challenges for teams in Shared Service Organizations,
which originate from the fact, that hybrid virtual teams are frequently deployed in
this context (faultlines through distance and disconnection through communication
technology). In addition, I identify the Shared Services’ characteristic contextual
challenge of discontinuity through temporality of team composition. This contex-
tual challenge finds expression in the Shared Services team members’ feeling of
uncertainty due to changing organizational structure, their perception of a looming
threat of future layoffs and a constant interaction with new colleagues. Hence, those
teams show dynamics, which are typical for short-term or project-based teams, even
though Shared Services’ teams are set up as permanent teams. Especially the loom-
ing threat of future layoffs emerged inductively form the interviews and has not been
reported so far in the literature about Shared Services Organizations. The Shared
Services’ experts confirmed in the interviews that these three contextual challenges
are of utmost importance to understand teamwork in Shared Services Organizations.
190 7 Discussion
Moreover, the study presented in this book contributes to the existing Shared Ser-
vices literature by complementing the dominant material perspective with a social
perspective on the Shared Services’ employees. Moving beyond the general dis-
course about solely material aspects such as efficiency and cost savings revealed the
need to start viewing this organizational setting from the perspective of the indi-
vidual operating in it as well. As the perspective on the individual employee takes
up very little space in the Shared Services literature stream so far (Redman et al.
2007: 1490; Knol et al. 2014: 101), this study sustainably expands our understand-
ing of what is happening inside Shared Services Organizations on a day-to-day basis.
Research recurrently provides evidence that the majority of Shared Service Organi-
zations struggle to accomplish their expected advantages (e.g. Cooke 2006; Janssen
and Joha 2006; PwC Study 2011), one potential reason could be explained by the
scholars’ and practitioners’ preoccupation with its materiality, primarily focusing on
operational and structural aspects of the organizational change. In doing so, they pay
less attention to the actors and their social activities within this setting. Hence, the
study presented in this book brings in novel insights with its sociomaterial perspec-
tive to more comprehensively capture the context and the dynamics of teamwork in
Fifth, for the study presented in this book I apply the theories about the shadow
of the future and the norm of reciprocity to the setting of hybrid virtual teams in
Shared Services Organizations. This application reveals that both theories distinguish
between permanent and temporary relationships and the duration of the relationship
being somehow determined (e.g. Saunders and Ahuja 2006; Hoppner and Griffith
2011). Yet, the present context exemplifies that the duration of team memberships can
also be perceived as undetermined, for instance through the looming threat of future
layoffs and high fluctuation rates. Even a determined short duration could influence
the decision how oneself and the interaction partner behave, as a short-term exchange
horizon makes it more difficult to punish or reward behavior or develop trust (Das
and Teng 2001) and may put the whole norm of reciprocity at risk. An undetermined
team membership, as discovered in the study presented in this book because of the
risk of future layoffs and fluctuation, calls for a more sophisticated models of the
shadow of the future and the norm of reciprocity to incorporate the yet unsolved
questions of how much to ‘invest’ into a relationship with a co-worker and how
much to expect in return in an undetermined duration of the relationship.
7.2.2 Strategies and Practices for Cooperation in Hybrid

Virtual Teams
To overcome the contextual challenges of hybrid virtual teams, prior research has
shown that team members have to devote extra attention to communicate and coop-
erate across the boundaries that may separate them (Cramton 2001). The study pre-
sented in this book contributes to the virtual team research by providing an elaborated,
process-oriented and realistic specification of how team members can address the
contextual challenges by actively using three strategies to foster cooperation: (1)
identity constructing, (2) trusting and (3) virtual peer monitoring. These three strate-
gies comprise a total of twenty-two different practices to overcome the cooperation
problem.
7.2.2.1 Identity Constructing Across Geographical Boundaries
Most of previous research has stated, that identification is difficult in situations,

where people are not physically close to one another (Festinger 1951; Allen 1977;
Kiesler and Cummings 2002), although identification promises laudable benefits for
enabling cooperation across distance (e.g. Wiesenfeld et al. 1999; Fiol and O’Connor
2005). Important antecedents to identification, especially a perceived superordinate
identity (Argote and Kane 2009) or a perceived proximity (Wilson et al. 2008) are
either primarily studied in face-to-face contexts or are only theoretical conceptual-
izations. Hence, how identification cues are shared virtually and how the process
of identification is established in hybrid virtual teams is understudied. The study
presented in this book sheds some light on the processes of identity constructing
in a virtual environment and therewith contributes to the identity and virtual team
literature.
First, until now identification is mostly conceptualized and labeled as a noun, thus,
being rather passive. The findings show, that in a virtual context it is more about an
active identity constructing to successfully overcome the contextual challenges of
this team setting. Thus, this study enriches existing identity literature by putting an
emphasis on identity constructing as being an active process, especially in a hybrid
virtual team context.
Additionally, with the noteworthy exceptions of the empirical studies conducted
by Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman (1998) and Hinds and Mortensen (2005), only
few scholars have examined to what extent informal and spontaneous communication
can actually contribute to a healthy functioning of teams with dispersed members.
Hinds and Mortensen (2005) show in their quantitative survey study, that such a
spontaneous communication is precisely that what is needed to overcome the limi-
tations of distributed work. Specifically, they outline that spontaneous communica-
tion is beneficial for the establishment and maintenance of a strong shared identity
(Hinds and Mortensen 2005: 302). Thus, the study presented in this book contributes
to this body of virtual team literature by complementing it with additional induc-
tively derived practices, which facilitate a shared identity even across geographical
boundaries. More precisely, the findings show, that the members of virtual teams
can construct a shared identity through practices of informal virtual communication,
sharing of visual cues, determining common goals and establishing a common work
ethic for their virtual teamwork. It is noteworthy, that the members need to be aware
of the fact that a shared virtual team identity less likely just evolves, but rather needs
to be actively promoted by the individuals through practices.
192 7 Discussion
Second, I enrich the theoretical conceptualization about a perceived proximity by

Wilson and colleagues (2008) with empirical data. They developed a hypothetical
model of perceived proximity in dispersed teams, however, so far there was no
empirical study on how such a perceived proximity can actually be enabled within
hybrid virtual teams. The study presented in this book empirically reveals, that team
members perceive themselves closer with each other, when they share a common
work ethic. Such perceptions of closeness even across a distance of hundreds of
kilometers can be a first empirical hint for a perceived proximity among members of
virtual teams. Thereby, I subsume the practices leading to such a perceived proximity
or closeness at a distance under the strategies of identity constructing.
7.2.2.2 Trusting as a Process of Co-creation
The findings related to trusting provide a new comprehensive picture on how trust in
hybrid virtual teams can be expressed and enabled. Thereby, the study presented in
this book provides different contributions to the trust and virtual team literature.
First, I answer the call for more empirical field studies about trust in virtual teams,
as they remain limited. In contrast to some of the previous research and despite the
challenges arising from global dispersion and virtuality, I discovered that traditional
forms of trust are possible in a virtual team context: (1) knowledge-based and (2)
identification-based trust. Previous research mostly studied (or discovered) trust in
virtual teams as swift trust (e.g. Iacono and Weisband 1997; Jarvenpaa et al. 1998;
Crisp and Jarvenpaa 2013), hence, being rather categorical. Thus, the study presented
in this book questions the dominant view of swift trust being the prevailing form of
trust in virtual teams (Crisp and Jarvenpaa 2013), by showing such traditional forms
of trust are possible as well. I found (1) forms of knowledge-based trust (Lewicki and
Bunker 1996) and (2) identification-based trust across subgroup boundaries among
the members of the hybrid virtual teams of GlobalMobility and GlobalTech. As
people act trustworthier with each other when they identify with each other (e.g.
Williams 2001; Willemyns et al. 2003; Kuwabara et al. 2007), this sets the ground
for identification-based trust (Lewicki and Bunker 1996). In addition, a high value
congruence in their perception of what a good accountant stands for, i.e. the work
delivered needs to be perfectly correct, seems to foster identification-based trust
between team members even across geographical boundaries.
Second, trust is mostly conceptualized as a noun and as an outcome, thus, being
rather passive. The findings show, that in a virtual context it is more about trusting as
an active process to overcome the contextual challenges originating from a hybrid
virtual team context. This contrasts past research, which mainly explores trust devel-
opment as a relatively passive process (Williams 2007). Taking a more active view
of trust would mean, that if trust implies a “willingness of a party to be vulnerable”
(Mayer et al. 1995: 712), then trusting would encompass how people generate, main-
tain, apply and possible lose such willingness (Möllering 2013: 286). This view of
trusting could be linked to the idea of ‘active trust’ (Giddens 1994). In line with that,
the empirical findings of the study presented in this book allow me to conceptualize
the trust development as an active process comprising different interrelated practices

of the potential trustee and trustor in hybrid virtual teams.
Moreover, I outline which practices trustees as well as trustors might employ
to enable their leaps of faith as confident suspensions of the perceived uncertainty
inherent in any social relationship and situation (Möllering 2013). Thereby, I show
that the interaction partners can more or less individually share cues of trustworthi-
ness (the potential trustee) or actively scan for trustworthiness cues (the potential
trustor), even in a virtual team context. Hence, based upon Mayer and colleagues’
(1995) model, the meta-analysis on trust by Colquitt and colleagues’ (2007) and in
line with the Nicole Gillespie’s (2012) respective emphasis, I distinguish trust from
the perceived trustworthiness (Lyon et al. 2012).
Third, I further contribute to the newly developing process-oriented research
stream about trust by showing that trusting is a process of co-creation. These results
build upon the “interactive trust” (Weibel 2004: 159), describing a form of trust at a
stage of commonality, with partners being mutually responsible for the cooperation.
Therewith “trusting as a social process” (Möllering 2013: 288) involves the inter-
action partner within a social context. Only few scholars have conducted empirical
research focusing on the process perspective of trusting so far, with the notable excep-
tion of Nikolova and her colleagues (2015). However, they conceptualized trusting as
a social process of different practices each doing a small leap of faith. However, the
empirical insights of the study presented in this book help to move beyond the social
processes of trusting, by proposing, that trusting is actually a process of co-creation.
Such co-creation of trust deliberately includes the aspect of communality proposed
by Weibel (2004). Hence, the trustee and the trustor perform practices of trusting
together in order to co-create the basis for a trustful virtual collaboration. This means,
the trustee and the trustor orient and adapt their own behavior according to the interac-
tion partner. Hence, this study contributes to the trust literature by showing how trust
is actually co-created in relationships at work. In the course of the study I identified
practices related to co-creating trust such as building knowledge together, communi-
cating results of self-checks, sharing virtual social recognition, showing emotional
credibility, establishing a joint understanding of reliability, admitting and forgiving
mistakes, maintaining confidentiality or agreeing on an appropriate level of gossip
as practices, where trustor and trustee co-create a trustful relationship together.
Lastly, this is the only study addressing the question of how trusting is created
and expressed in a virtual context and some of these identified practices of trusting
are tailored to virtual teamwork. For instance, I analyze how technology supports
or hinders trusting. Therewith, I also respond to the frequent calls for developing
context-specific models of trust (Kramer and Cook 2004; Schoorman et al. 2007) by
sharing insights about trust, which incorporates the challenges and specifics of the
hybrid virtual team context.
194 7 Discussion
7.2.2.3 Virtual Peer Monitoring with Means of Technology
The findings related to virtual peer monitoring provide distinctive implications on

the role of peer monitoring in a hybrid virtual team context. Therewith, the study
presented in this book provides novel contributions to the existing literature on
organizational control and virtual teams.
First, the study presented in this book contributes to the organizational control
and virtual team literature by empirically introducing virtual peer monitoring as a
strategy to foster cooperation in hybrid virtual teams. Existing research on orga-
nizational control mainly discusses peer monitoring (or peer control respectively)
theoretically, providing mixed assumptions that monitoring is either possible and
more likely (e.g. Loughry 2010; Kirsch et al. 2010) or impossible and more difficult
(Carson et al. 2003; Gibson and Gibbs 2006; Muethel et al. 2012). Research on com-
puter science mainly focuses on individual agents working together on open source
platforms (e.g. Gallivan 2001; Stewart and Gosain 2006) and not on long-term work
teams. Based on the findings of the study presented in this book, I provide empirical
evidence for the role of synchronous and asynchronous media in the peer monitoring
process within teams. Therewith, this study combines (virtual) peer monitoring with
the Media Synchronicity Theory and enhances our understanding of how peer moni-
toring is facilitated by communication technology. This link between the control and
Information Systems literature highlights the importance of a media fit to the dif-
ferent virtual monitoring situations, e.g. synchronous media for urgent monitoring,
asynchronous media for reprocessability.
Second, need-based peer monitoring can enable cooperation in hybrid virtual
teams. Previous research shows that peer monitoring can reduce motivational losses,
because the likelihood increases that co-workers will detect when somebody is with-
drawing one’s individual effort. This helps everyone to focus on realizing the goals of
the team. Moreover, peer monitoring can reduce coordination losses. It can indirectly
function as a coordination mechanism (Rico et al. 2008), because team members’
awareness increases for the timing, actions and performance of co-workers (Marks
and Panzer 2004). Some scholars note, that team members monitoring their fellow
teammates and provide feedback and suggestions may be a requirement for teams
to function well (Hedge et al. 1999; Salas et al. 2005; Loughry 2010). Thereby, peer
monitoring can help to detect opportunities to assist, motivate or encourage poorly
performing co-workers, and—when necessary—be able to step in and compensate
for their poor performance (LePine and Van Dyne 2001). This type of peer monitoring
can be labeled need-based peer monitoring (see Sect. 6.4.2.1), as proposed by McAl-
lister (1995). In line with this, the findings of the study presented in this book offer
supporting insights about the importance of a positive monitoring culture. If agreed
among the individual team members hat peer monitoring shall be perceived and
meant as constructive and need-based, it can sustainably foster cooperation within
teams.
7.3 Practical Implications 195
7.3 Practical Implications
The study presented in this book carries significant practical implications for the
management and the members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organiza-
tion. Because if they are aware of the contextual challenges leading to cooperation
problems on one side and the strategies to foster cooperation on the other side,
they can undertake specific practices to ensure or enable cooperative teamwork. The
awareness for the contextual challenges of faultlines through distance, disconnection
through communication technology and discontinuity through temporality of team
composition, will help the managers and team members to address the circumstantial
reasons proactively, before they lead to contextual challenges putting the cooperation
within their team at risk. Or, mitigate the contextual challenges when the cooperation
problems already occur.
In order to address the contextual challenges of hybrid virtual teams in Shared
Services Organizations, team members can pursue three different strategies to foster
cooperation: (1) identity constructing, (2) trusting and (3) virtual peer monitoring.
Each of the three strategies comprises specific practices, which each individual can
use to overcome (or avoid) the cooperation problem within the hybrid virtual teams.
As a first strategy, identity constructing, the team members can jointly strive to
construct a shared identity. Such a shared identity is essential, especially for teams
with members from different backgrounds, because it is quite likely for them to
have dissimilar views on what the purpose of the team may be. Thus, it is important
for identity construction to figure out what are the common goals and the benefits
of working as a hybrid virtual team for each individual team member and then to
reach a consensus. It yields the biggest benefits when the team’s goals are clear,
challenging, consequential and commonly known. Thereby, it is helpful to reinforce
what is already shared and to also stress to what extent each team member depends
on his or her fellow teammates to accomplish the team’s goals. It may help to remind
the individual team members that they need to work along the same lines to get
where they want to be as a team. Especially when the composition is dynamic, the
strategy of identity constructing needs to become an ongoing process. Developing
such common goals and superordinate identities can reduce the negative dynamics of
subgroup formation within hybrid virtual teams. One approach, which is usually quite
successful, is to make sure that each subgroup senses an appreciation for its respective
contribution toward the overall goals of the team. In doing so, the subgroup identities
are maintained, instead of weakened. Therefore, during the identity construction the
team members need to be able to locate their subgroup identities within a context of
the binding superordinate identity.
The second strategy, trusting, comprises practices according to which team mem-
bers individual as well as together can actively enable trustful relationships within
their hybrid virtual team. Individually, the potential trustor and the potential trustee
can undertake practices of overcome the cooperation problem. For instance, the
trustor can scan for trustworthiness cues of the interaction partner and the trustee
can actively signalize one’s trustworthiness. Each of these practices can enable trust
196 7 Discussion
and therewith foster cooperation. But not only individually, the interaction part-
ner in hybrid virtual teams can also engage in practices of co-creating trust. These
co-creation practices comprise an iterative process to overcome cooperation prob-
lems by jointly building trust through practices together. It is key to remember that
relationship and trust building should be an ongoing process. Furthermore, specific
guidelines for team interaction, like rules of engagement, may be critical to reduce
uncertainty and enhance trust in teams.
The third strategy to deal with the (potential) cooperation problem of teams in
challenging contexts is virtual peer monitoring. The practices of virtual peer moni-
toring can foster cooperation in hybrid virtual teams. Thereby, the information and
communication technology offers asynchronous and synchronous ways to monitor
the co-worker, potentially even allowing a more purposeful monitoring than in a face-
to-face setting. But although peer monitoring can be purposeful for cooperation, it is
still a sensitive matter in most teams. Frequently, peer monitoring bears the risk of be
interpreted as missing solidarity and a lack of trust between peers (Langfred 2004).
Furthermore, if monitoring is too intense, performed indirectly and/or being per-
ceived as inappropriate, it could do harm to the relationships among co-workers and
the individual or collective performance (e.g. Lougrhy and Tosi 2008). Therefore,
leaders and members of hybrid virtual teams concerned with fostering cooperation
need to establish a positive climate for monitoring. For example, describing peer
monitoring as a necessary and natural part of team processes, it may help to set team
norms in an appropriate and functional manner. Monitoring needs to be understood
as a practice motivated by the desire to assist rather than to control each other. This
frequently requires a shift in perception by the team members and thus needs to be
actively moderated and introduced as a strategy to foster cooperation into the team.
Moreover, members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations
can easily use each of the three strategies and the respective twenty-two practices
to foster cooperation in their real life teams, because the practices are derived from
field research in real life settings and are therefore very hands-on. Even though, the
study presented in this book and the findings originate from the specific research
of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations, the contextual challenges
and their respective expressions as well as the strategies and respective practices
to foster cooperation may likely be insightful to better understand and manage the
cooperation problem in other challenging contexts as well.
Another practical implication is, that the careful introduction of communication
technology is of utmost importance when setting up hybrid virtual teams. Leaders
and members of hybrid virtual teams need to be sensitive to the fact, that technology
is likely to be a double-edged sword: (1) it can provide additional options such as
for documentation of team processes; but (2) it can also create additional contextual
challenges for the teamwork. Specifically, even the availability of state of the art
technology does not completely defy the contextual challenges for cooperation in
virtual teamwork. Employees, who are located in the same office, commonly chat
about what is happening in their (private) lives. Yet, virtual teammates exchange
about their lives more rarely. Therefore, one promising approach is to take five
minutes at the beginning of each (conference) call for everyone to, for example,
7.3 Practical Implications 197
share some personal news or tell about a recent professional success. To tell and hear
such stories may help to reduce the anonymity that is common when people do not
work collocated with each other. Related to welcoming new members to the team,
the on boarding can comprise pairing new joiners with more senior team members as
mentors, to answer questions quickly and personally. If the tools allow so, such new
joiners to the team can be asked to give a short video tour of their workspaces and tell
something about themselves. This allows colleagues to establish mental images of
one another, which they later can resort to when communicating via phone or e-mail.
Moreover, the study offers valuable implications for managers, team leader as
well as management consultant for Shared Services Organizations, because it puts
the employees at center-stage, which has not been done before. Therewith, this study
provides a sociomaterial orientation for leaders and members of Shared Services to
identify their contextual challenges first, and then offers strategies and respective
practices to overcome those challenges. This is very relevant for Shared Services
teams, as the contextual challenges they encounter can hamper the teamwork to
flourish and to put the entire organizational model at risk.
7.4 Empirical Implications, Limitations and Future

Research
The aim of the qualitative study presented in this book was to develop a comprehen-
sive understanding of the contextual challenges, which members of hybrid virtual
teams in Shared Services Organizations experience. Furthermore, it was also the aim
to find out how members of these teams use strategies to foster cooperation despite
those contextual challenges and to what extent technology may help or hamper the use
of those strategies. While the study presented in this book provides context-sensitive
and informant-driven answers on how to overcome the cooperation problem in hybrid
virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations, it also has some limitations.
First, doing qualitative research inspired by organizational ethnography was very
beneficial in order to grasp the complex team processes through a complex set of
qualitative methods. Conducting interviews while being in the field and observing the
working environment plus collecting documents all at once was particularly helpful
in problematizing what is usually taken for granted by the informants (i.e. problems in
cooperating with their far away colleagues) and making explicit the often overlooked
(i.e. challenges determined by the context of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services
Organizations).1 In addition, the immersion of using the communication technology
in the field myself helped me to get a better feeling for the contextual challenges
1 What is commonly criticized when talking about organisational ethnography is the question
whether the researcher really ‘understood’ the field. Thus, it is important to mention that the author
has worked for over four years in such a context, i.e. in a hybrid virtual team in an Accounting
Shared Services Organization, resulting in a solid understanding of what is happening inside such
teams under study.
198 7 Discussion
related to technology. Moreover, the observation of situations in which informants

used communication technology to discuss task-related problems with team mem-
bers from other locations, allowed me to ask targeted questions for clarification in
the subsequent interviews. Hence, organizational ethnography as a context-sensitive
framework is recommendable as an empirical implication, especially for studying
trust, which is best studied in a context-sensitive way (Kramer and Cook 2004 ).
However, the findings of the study presented in this book are based on a relative
small database (17 interviews at GlobalMobility, 8 interviews at GlobalTech, 3 group
discussion, 18 days of observation and 10 expert interviews). Especially for Glob-
alTech, I would have liked to interview more employees. Due this limitation in the
database, some positions, patterns or specific themes only surface once or twice dur-
ing the analysis. In contrast, some recent qualitative studies comprised impressive
samples of around 100 or more interviewees (e.g. Barner-Rasmussen et al. 2014;
Hinds et al. 2014; Tenzer et al. 2014). Yet, interpreted carefully, the informants’
positions, patterns and themes, which I identified, can still be taken as indicators for
how individuals experience their work in a challenging virtual context.
Second, qualitative research in general has been criticized for the lack of method-
ological rigor (Denzin and Lincoln 2003). The methodological rigor, however, is
addressed comprehensively by pursuing validity through the use of different meth-
ods for data collection. This is commonly perceived as a central way to ensure
validity in qualitative research (Ritchie and Lewis 2003: 44). Especially combining
qualitative interviews with observations in order to backup the research insights with
different data sources is useful to strengthen the validity of a qualitative study (Mar-
shall and Rossmann 2006; Ybema et al. 2009). Moreover, validity was addressed
through comparison of two companies, which aids theory building and enhances the
validity of the research findings as well (e.g. Bechhofer and Paterson 2000). Yet, the
number of cases and the number of informants were not large enough for revealing
statistical hypotheses. However, the aim of the study presented in this book was to
explore and not to test.
In addition, and despite the fact that I conducted field research at all locations
of the hybrid virtual teams, I had only limited access to the perspectives of both
ends of the virtual collaboration for any specific situation. That means, interviewing
one individual at one site and he or she talking about a certain incident with an
interaction partner, I could not also interview the respective counterpart at the other
site and talk about the very same incident. In this respect, some scholars have made
impressive studies conducting concurrent observations and interviews. This means
simultaneously observing team members at multiple locations of a virtual team (e.g.
Hinds et al. 2014). Future research could follow this format, however resources often
limit such research endeavors.
Third, there are some methodological limitations related to researching trust. One
is about the period of data collection as I present trusting as a dynamic process because
trust can be built up, maintained, broken and repaired. The present study is rather
short in respect of the data collection period. Here, longitudinal data collection could
help to capture such process over a longer period of time, yet such studies are rare.
Additionally, future research could validate the findings in a quantitative study. This
7.4 Empirical Implications, Limitations and Future Research 199
would reveal further support for the suggested contextual challenges and strategies to
foster cooperation that were indicated based on the qualitative information. Moreover,
quantitative research could reveal causalities and the strength of respective effects.
Fourth, the aspect of peer monitoring, as presented in this book, has been exclu-
sively look at as being conducive to cooperation in hybrid virtual teams in Shared
Services Organizations. Specifically, peer monitoring was selected as a sensitizing
concept of a solution to foster cooperation and then, during the field research, the
emphasis has also been on figuring out how practices of peer monitoring are used
by the informants on a day-to-day basis to overcome the cooperation problem. Yet,
peer monitoring as a strategy may not only be beneficial. More precisely, negative
team dynamics such as reducing effort may be triggered if monitoring is perceived as
too intense or based on suspicion. Hence, the effect of monitoring depends to a high
degree on how the monitoring is enacted in the sense of suspicious or non-suspicious
monitoring. For instance, an experiment showed, that individuals reduce their effort
only in case when they perceive the suspicious intention of their interaction partner
(Falk and Kosfeld 2006; Weibel 2010: 445). Future research could therefore also
investigate how the strategies and respective practices have to be enacted to foster
rather than hamper the cooperation between the members of hybrid virtual teams.
Fifth, a specific limitation of the study presented in this book is its embeddedness in
a specific challenging context, i.e. international Shared Services Organizations, and
thus raises questions about generalizability of the derived findings to other virtual
contexts and to a non-virtual context. Moreover, the teams under study are split
across Germany, Switzerland, Poland and Romania. Yet, the study did not focus
on culture, because the informants did not put an emphasis on it (“as long as it
is in Europe—it makes—it will work. Because the cultural differences are not that
big” (IF_28_GT3)). In addition, previous findings suggest, that in virtual teams the
cultural differences are mitigated due to the virtual communication (e.g. Jarvenpaa
and Leidner 1999). However, future studies should investigate in how far cultural
differences determine how individuals identify, trust and monitor each other in a
hybrid virtual team.
Sixth, the fact that the strategies are not exposed as mutually exclusive, neither
as fully contradicting, complementing or reinforcing each other, could be seen as a
limitation of the study presented in this book. Yet, this was never an objective. To
display the full complexity of all the different interrelations, while at the same time
trying to create categories and identify patterns, revealed to be challenging sometimes
and is therefore a limitation of this study. Hence, future research could specify the
relationships between identity constructing, trusting and virtual peer monitoring in
more detail. Future research could also investigate other solutions not considered in
this study, which did not satisfy the selection criteria, such as power or managerial
control.
Finally, this study is limited to the explorative question of how cooperation can be
enabled in the challenging context of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Service Organi-
zations. Future research could, thus, investigate with which strategies cooperation is
best restored, if problems already occurred, and by which strategies can best prevent
cooperation problems. Moreover, I focus on the contextual challenges for cooperation
200 7 Discussion
in hybrid virtual teams, which the members of these teams need to overcome. Future
studies could build on these insights about the challenges and complement them by
focusing more on the advantages of this context, such as flexibility in answering due
to asynchronous communication media.
References
Allen, T. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barner-Rasmussen, W., Ehrnrooth, M., Koveshnikov, A., & Mäkelä, K. (2014). Cultural and lan-
guage skills as resources for boundary spanning within the MNC. Journal of International
Bechhofer, F., & Paterson, L. (2000). Principles of research design in the social sciences. Routledge.
Becker, J., Niehaves, B., & Krause, A. (2009). Shared services strategies and their determinants: A
multiple case study analysis in the public sector. AMCIS 2009 Proceedings, 14.
Carson, S. J., Madhok, A., Varman, R., & John, G. (2003). Information processing moderators of the
effectiveness of trust-based governance in interfirm R&D collaboration. Organization Science,
14(1), 45–56.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A
Cooke, F. L. (2006). Modeling an HR shared services centre: Experience of an MNC in the United
Kingdom. Human Resource Management, 45(2), 211–227.
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed
collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.
Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning? Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 231–263.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2001). Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated
framework. Organization studies,22(2), 251-283.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (2003). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Falk, A., & Kosfeld, M. (2006). The hidden costs of control. The American Economic Review, 96(5),
1611–1630.
Festinger, L. (1951). Architecture and group membership. Journal of Social Issues, 7(1–2), 152–163.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social processes in informal groups.
Gallivan, M. J. (2001). Striking a balance between trust and control in a virtual organization:
A content analysis of open source software case studies. Information Systems Journal, 11(4),
277–304.
References 201
Giddens, A. (1994). Risk, trust and reflexivity. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive
modernization (pp. 184–197). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Gillespie, N. (2012). Measuring trust in organizational contexts: An overview of survey-based
measures. In F. Lyon, G. Möllering, & M. Saunders (Eds.), Handbook of research methods on
trust (pp. 175–188). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Griffith, T. L., Sawyer, J. E., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams: Managing
the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly, 265–
287.
Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams:
The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication.
Studies, 45(5), 536–561.
Hoppner, J. J., & Griffith, D. A. (2011). The role of reciprocity in clarifying the performance payoff
of relational behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 920–928.
Iacono, C. S., & Weisband, S. (1997, January). Developing trust in virtual teams. In Proceedings of
the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1997 (Vol. 2, pp. 412–420).
IEEE.
Iveroth, E. (2011). The sociomaterial practice of IT-enabled change: A case study of a global
transformation. Journal of change management, 11(3), 375–395.
Janssen, M., & Joha, A. (2006). Motives for establishing shared service centers in public
administrations. International Journal of Information Management, 26(2), 102–115.
global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29–64.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical
integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706.
Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work
groups? A legacy of research. Distributed Work, 1, 57–80.
Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (Eds.) (2004). Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet
paradox revisited. Journal of social issues, 58(1), 49-74.
Kuwabara, K., Willer, R., Macy, M. W., Mashima, R., Terai, S., & Yamagishi, T. (2007). Culture,
identity, and structure in social exchange: A web-based trust experiment in the United States and
Japan. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70(4), 461–479.
Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343–356.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: An attributional model of
helping in the context of groups. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 67–84.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In
Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139).
Bijlsma-Frankema (Eds.), Organizational control (pp. 324–361). Cambridge University Press.
202 7 Discussion
Loughry, M. L., & Tosi, H. L. (2008). Performance implications of peer monitoring. Organization
Science, 19(6), 876–890.
Lyon, F., Möllering, G., & Saunders, M. (Eds.) (2012). Handbook of research methods on trust.
Marks, M. A., & Panzer, F. J. (2004). The influence of team monitoring on team processes and
performance. Human Performance, 17(1), 25–41.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.
Möllering, G. (2013). Process views of trusting and crises. In R. Bachmann, & A. Zaheer (Eds.),
Handbook of advances in trust research (pp. 285–305). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Nardi, B., S. Whittaker. (2002). The place of face-to-face communication in distributed work. P. J.
Hinds, S. Kiesler (eds.). Distributed Work. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 83-110.
245.
Olson, G.M., & Olson, J.S. (2000) Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2), 139–179.
Olson, J. S., S. D. Teasley, L. Covi, G. Olson. (2002.) The (currently) unique advantages of collocated
work. P. J. Hinds, S. Kiesler, (eds.). Distributed Work. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 113-135.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization
Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.
PwC Study. (2011). Shared service centers—‘The 2nd generation’, May 2011, Published by
PriceWaterhouseCoopers AG.
Redman, T., Snape, E., Wass, J., & Hamilton, P. (2007). Evaluating the human resource shared
services model: Evidence from the NHS. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 18(8), 1486–1506.
Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., & Gibson, C. (2008). Team implicit coordination
processes: A team knowledge–based approach. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 163–184.
Ritchie, J, & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students
and researchers. Sage Publications.
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group
Research, 36(5), 555–599.
Sarbaugh-Thompson, M., & Feldman, M. S. (1998). Electronic mail and organizational communi-
cation: Does saying “hi” really matter? Organization Science, 9(6), 685–698.
Stewart, K. J., & Gosain, S. (2006). The impact of ideology on effectiveness in open source software
development teams. MIS Quarterly, 291–314.
Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M., & Ernst, H. (2009). How to manage virtual teams. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 50(4), 63-68.
Tenzer, H., & Pudelko, M. (2016). Media choice in multilingual virtual teams. Journal of
International Business Studies, 47(4), 427–452.
References 203
Tenzer, H., Pudelko, M., & Harzing, A. W. (2014). The impact of language barriers on trust formation
in multinational teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 508–535.
Weibel, A. (2004). Kooperation in strategischen Wissensnetzwerken- Vertrauen und Kontrolle zur
Lösung des sozialen Dilemmas. Berlin: Springer.
Weibel, A. (2010). Managerial objectives of formal control: High motivation control mechanisms. In
S. B. Sitkin, L. B. Cardinal, & K. B. Bijlsma-Frankema (Eds.), Organizational control (pp. 434–
462). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6, 31.
Willemyns, M., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. (2003). Trust me, I’m your boss: Trust and power in
supervisor–supervisee communication. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
14(1), 117–127.
Williams, M. (2007). Building genuine trust through interpersonal emotion management: A threat
regulation model of trust and collaboration across boundaries. Academy of Management Review,
32(2), 595–621.
Ybema, S., Yanow, D., Wels, H., & Kamsteeg, F. H. (2009). Studying everyday organizational life.
In S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, & F. H. Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational ethnography. Studying
the complexity of everyday life (pp. 1–20). London: Sage.
Chapter 8
Conclusion
The study presented in this book explores how members of hybrid virtual teams in
Shared Services Organizations use practices to overcome the cooperation problem
in their teams. I therewith respond to the frequent calls for more context-specific
research. Specifically, this study corresponds to three major research targets: (1)
identifying the expression of real-life contextual challenges in a challenging team
setting such as hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations, (2) exploring
strategies and practices used by hybrid virtual team members to overcome the coop-
eration problem and (3) analyzing the role of technology for using these strategies
and practices in hybrid virtual teams in Shared Service Organizations.
Numerous contextual challenges can hamper the cooperation in hybrid virtual
teams in Shared Services Organizations. I empirically show how (a) faultlines through
distance; (b) disconnection through communication technology and (c) discontinuity
through temporality of team composition make the cooperation fraught with prob-
lems. Particularly, hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations interact in
a context characterized by psychological distance, location-based subgroup forma-
tions, missing spontaneous encounters, increased anonymity due to limited visibility,
a lack of informal communication, missing visual cues of reaction, lower commu-
nication frequency, a higher risk of non-response, an intimacy gap, uncertainty due
to changing organizational structures, a looming threat of future layoffs, regular
interaction with new colleagues due to high labor turnover and a high level of task
interdependency, all at the same time. In outlining the variety of contextual chal-
lenges from the perspective of the individuals experiencing it, I enrich the existing
virtual team literature as well as the more consultancy-based literature of Shared
Services, which is dominated by a material perspective, with a social perspective
about what is actually happening inside these teams.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34300-2_8
206 8 Conclusion
I empirically showcase different strategies to foster cooperation in hybrid virtual

teams in Shared Services Organizations. I display how members of such teams use
identification, trust and peer monitoring in a virtual environment and thus foster
cooperation, even in such a challenging context. These cooperation strategies can be
categorized as (a) identity constructing, (b) individual and co-created trusting and (c)
virtual peer monitoring. Those three strategies comprise a total of twenty-two differ-
ent practices, being fostering informal virtual communication, sharing visual cues to
feel connected, determining common goals, establishing a common work ethic, pro-
filing the potential trustee, making use of third party references, checking for value
(in-) congruence, signalizing ability, signalizing benevolence, signalizing integrity,
building knowledge together, communicating results of self-checks, sharing virtual
social recognition, showing emotional credibility, establishing a joint understanding
of reliability, admitting and forgiving mistakes, maintaining confidentiality, agreeing
on an appropriate level of gossip, using synchronous or asynchronous media for peer
monitoring, having the right intentions and creating a culture for monitoring and
feedback. Members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Service Organizations, and
likely members of other team settings as well, can use this variety of practices to
overcome the cooperation problem in their respective teams.
The comparison of two companies shows that all three strategies and the respective
practices for cooperation, namely identity constructing, trusting and virtual peer
monitoring, can be applied in company contexts of the ‘old economy’ (equipped
with e.g. telephone, email, fax) as well as of the ‘new economy’ (equipped in addition
with e.g. video phone call, electronic conferencing, instant messaging). Yet, it may
be a little more convenient at new economy-like companies to undertake the different
practices, because those companies may offer for example special tools for social
recognition and the possibility of video conferencing for their employees. But there
are workarounds for less technologically advanced company settings, e.g. sending
pictures via email for visual cues. Concluding, the availability of the media itself
is not sufficient to foster cooperation. Rather, managers and team members have
to be aware that it is always an active process of using practices to overcome the
cooperation problem in hybrid virtual teams, regardless of the up-to-dateness of
the available technology. In sum, state-of-the-art media can facilitate, but not ensure,
identity constructing, trusting and virtual peer mentoring and the respective practices
to foster cooperation in hybrid virtual teams.
Concluding, I contribute theoretically, practically and empirically to our under-
standing of how team members experience contextual challenges and how they
use strategies and practices to foster cooperation by means of technology, even in
challenging contexts such as hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations.
References 207
References
Baldwin, L. P., Irani, Z., & Love, P. E. (2001). Outsourcing information systems: drawing lessons
from a banking case study. European Journal of Information Systems, 10(1), 15–24.
Bergeron, B. (2003). Essentials of shared services, Wiley, 93–95.
Bhalla, A., Sodhi, M. S., & Son, B. G. (2008). Is more IT offshoring better? An exploratory study
of western companies offshoring to South East Asia. Journal of Operations Management, 26(2),
322–335.
Bijlsma-Frankema, K., De Jong, B., & van de Bunt, G. (2008). Heed, a missing link between trust,
monitoring and performance in knowledge intensive teams. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 19(1), 19–40.
Bloom, H. S., & Price, H. D. (1975). Voter response to short-run economic conditions: The
asymmetric effect of prosperity and recession. American Political Science Review, 69(04),
1240–1254.
Buunk, B. P., Doosje, B. J., Jans, L. G., & Hopstaken, L. E. (1993). Perceived reciprocity, social sup-
port, and stress at work: The role of exchange and communal orientation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 65(4), 801.
Connelly, B. L., Miller, T., & Devers, C. E. (2012). Under a cloud of suspicion: Trust, distrust, and
their interactive effect in interorganizational contracting. Strategic Management Journal, 33(7),
820–833.
Davis, T. R. (2005). Integrating shared services with the strategy and operations of MNEs. Journal
of General Management, 31(2), 1.
Day, K. J., & Norris, A. C. (2006). Supporting information technology across health boards in
New Zealand: Themes emerging from the development of a shared services organization. Health
Informatics Journal, 12(1), 13–25.
Dibbern, J., Goles, T., Hirschheim, R., & Jayatilaka, B. (2004). Information systems outsourcing:
A survey and analysis of the literature. ACM Sigmis Database, 35(4), 6–102.
Dickinson, T. L., & McIntyre, R. M. (1997). A conceptual framework for teamwork measurement.
Team performance assessment and measurement (pp. 19–43).
Doig, S. J., Ritter, R. C., Speckhals, K., & Woolson, D. (2001). Has outsourcing gone too far? The
McKinsey Quarterly, 25–25.
Eden, D. (1992). Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and other self-fulfilling prophecies
in organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(4), 271–305.
Fang, Y., Kwok, R. C. W., & Schroeder, A. (2014). Knowledge processes in virtual teams:
Consolidating the evidence. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(5), 486–501.
Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1164–1184.
Gottfredson, M., Puryear, R., & Phillips, S. (2005). Strategic sourcing: From periphery to the core.
Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 132–139.
Hall, L., & Torrington, D. (1998). Letting go or holding on-the devolution of operational personnel
activities. Human Resource Management Journal, 8(1), 41–55.
Hitzler, R. (1991). Dummheit als methode. In Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung (pp. 295–318).
VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Hsieh, C. M., Lazzarini, S. G., & Nickerson, J. A. (2002, August). Outsourcing and the variabil-
ity of product performance: Data from international courier services. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 2002(1), G1–G6.
Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology,
31(1), 457–501.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated
communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123.
Kirsch, L. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1996). Contextual influences on self-control of IS professionals
engaged in systems development. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 6(3),
191–219.
208 8 Conclusion
Kirsch, L. J., Sambamurthy, V., Ko, D. G., & Purvis, R. L. (2002). Controlling information systems
development projects: The view from the client. Management Science, 48(4), 484–498.
KPMG Report (2015). Service management in der shared service organisation. ergebnis einer
empirischen untersuchung zum reifegrad von shared service organisationen. Im Auftrag des
Instituts für Accounting, Controlling und Auditing der Universität St. Gallen.
Lacity, M. C., Willcocks, L. P., & Feeny, D. F. (1995). IT outsourcing: Maximize flexibility and
control. Harvard Business Review, 73(3), 84–93.
Landrum, A. R., Eaves, B. S., & Shafto, P. (2015). Learning to trust and trusting to learn: A theoretical
framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(3), 109–111.
Leiblein, M. J., Reuer, J. J., & Dalsace, F. (2002). Do make or buy decisions matter? The influence of
organizational governance on technological performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(9),
817–833.
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and
realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438–458.
Maatman, M., Bondarouk, T., & Looise, J. K. (2010). Conceptualising the capabilities and value
creation of HRM shared service models. Human Resource Management Review, 20(4), 327–339.
Meijerink, J., ten Kattelaar, & Ehrenhard, M. (2014). Structuring shared services: Realizing SSC
benefits through end-users’ usage of an HR tool. In T Bondarouk (Ed.), Shared services as a new
organizational form (pp. 105–131). Emerald Group Publishing.
Mellewigt, T., Madhok, A., & Weibel, A. (2007). Trust and formal contracts in interorganizational
relationships—substitutes and complements. Managerial and Decision Economics, 28(8), 833–
847.
Minnaar, R., & Vosselman, E. (2009). Shared Service Centers and Governance Struture change:
A transaction cost economics approach. NiCE Working Paper, Nijmegen Center for Economics
(NiCE), Institute for Management Research Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis. Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory
and research, 261–287.
Murray, J. Y., Kotabe, M., & Westjohn, S. A. (2009). Global sourcing strategy and performance of
knowledge-intensive business services: A two-stage strategic fit model. Journal of International
Marketing, 17(4), 90–105.
Parlett, M., & Hamilton, D. (1972). Evaluation as illumination—A new approach to the study of
innovatory programs. Occasional Paper, Oct., 72, 1–33.
Potter, R. E., & Balthazard, P. A. (2002). Virtual team interaction styles: Assessment and effects.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56(4), 423–443.
Schul, Y., Mayo, R., & Burnstein, E. (2004). Encoding under trust and distrust: the spontaneous
activation of incongruent cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 668.
Schulman, D. S., Harmer, M. J., Dunleavy, J. R., & Lusk, J. S. (1999). Shared services: Adding
value to the business units. Wiley.
Sinkovics, R. R., & Alfoldi, E. A. (2012). Progressive focusing and trustworthiness in qualitative
research. Management International Review, 52(6), 817–845.
Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 675–682.
Sparrow, P., & Braun, W. (2007). Human resource strategy in international context. Strategic Human
Resource Management, 162–199.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Computers, networks and work. Scientific American, 265(3),
116–123.
Strikwerda, J. (2014). Shared service centers: From cost savings to new ways of value creation and
business administration. In T Bondarouk (Ed.), Shared services as a new organizational form
(pp. 1–15). Emerald Group Publishing.
Webber, S. S. (2008). Development of cognitive and affective trust in teams: A longitudinal study.
Small Group Research, 39(6), 746–769.

Hybrid Virtual Teams in Shared Services Organizations: Thomas Afflerbach

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hybrid Virtual Teams in Shared Services Organizations: Thomas Afflerbach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Progress in IS

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10440

Hybrid Virtual Teams

ISSN 2196-8705 ISSN 2196-8713 (electronic)

Virtual teams are increasingly common in companies. Especially in Shared Services

Berlin, Germany Thomas Afflerbach

3.4 Peer Monitoring to Foster Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

6.3.5 Co-creating Benevolence-Based Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Fig. 2.1 Conceptualization of hybrid virtual teams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16

Table 2.1 Overview of contextual challenges of hybrid virtual teams

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

theoretically derive sensitizing concepts for solutions to foster cooperation despite

individuals play. Furthermore, no study specifically addresses the question of how

2.1 Research Context: Hybrid Virtual Teams in Shared

2.1.1 Relevance and Definition of Teams

To accomplish organizational success, the number of organizations deploying team-

Despite the popularity and necessity of team-structures in a dramatically changing

2.1.2 Relevance and Definition of Virtual Teams

knowledge management and strategic analysis or product and software (Espinosa

2.1.3 Conceptualizing Hybrid Virtual Teams

To comprehensively understand hybrid virtual teams, one needs to understand virtu-

Traditional Hybrid virtual Purely

Fig. 2.1 Conceptualization of hybrid virtual teams. Source Own illustration

members results in a reduction of spontaneous communication, while at the same

2.1.4 Shared Services Organizations as a Challenging

this organizational context, because the management is seeking an optimal distribu-

In a similar vein, Bondarouk (2014) identified the following characteristics

2.2 Challenges of Hybrid Virtual Teams in Shared Service

2.2.1 Defining the Cooperation Problem

2.2.2 Challenges for Cooperation in Hybrid Virtual Teams

2.2.2.1 Overview: Sensitizing Concepts of Contextual Challenges

The increased risk of cooperation problems between members of hybrid virtual

2.2.2.2 Contextual Challenge of Distance

One of the contextual challenges of hybrid virtual teams potentially provoking a

Subgroup at Location 1 Subgroup at Location 2

2.2.2.3 Contextual Challenge of Technology

Another contextual challenge of hybrid virtual teams, potentially compounding a

“the ability of information to change understanding within a time interval” (Daft

Table 2.2 Media capabilities in Media Synchronicity Theory

2.2.2.4 Contextual Challenge of Temporality

Another team characteristic bearing the (potential) risk of causing a cooperation

Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative

3.1 Overview: Sensitizing Concepts to Foster Cooperation

solution to foster cooperation may be worth to further delve into as a sensitizing

3.2 Identification to Foster Cooperation

3.2.1 Identification and Cooperation

3.2.2 Conceptualizing Identification

Identification is conceptualized in relation to identity as a “self-referential description

outgroup designations are frequently viewed as interteam phenomena, the differen-

3.2.3 Identification in Virtual Teams

Identification in virtual environments is seen as the critical “glue” for collaborations

the opportunity for identification. However, empirical research on identification in a

Second, as a result of communication technology making cultural differences

3.3 Trust to Foster Cooperation

3.3.1 Trust and Cooperation

Generally, trust may enable cooperation, because it enables team members to

3.3.2 Conceptualizing Trust

Trust is conceptualized as the willingness to be vulnerable based on positive expec-

most scholarly attention receives the three-dimensional model of cognition-based

3.3.3 Process-View on Trust

(2) defining, negotiating and aligning to client’s expectations to demonstrate

3.3.4 Context-Sensitive Trust-Theories for Virtual Teams

3.4 Peer Monitoring to Foster Cooperation