To allow for flexibility and global integration in multinationals, global teams are becoming more fluid, forming and dispersing quickly to address organizational needs. The coordination that takes place in these temporary agile teams is critical for global work. However, current conceptualizations of teams and methodological approaches do not provide a clear understanding of dynamic global teams and how they get global work done in multinational enterprises (MNEs). To address this, we mobilize the teaming perspective to explore global work in the complex matrix structure of Computer (a pseudonym), a large technology MNE. Our study includes interviews and observations from 40 global account teams. The findings suggest that an intermediate structure, which we call a meta-team, provides a referential space that supports teaming. Within the meta-team, operational practices and a common mind-set provide guidelines for member behavior and expectations. Additionally, teaming substructures form and change to adapt to activities. This study contributes to the literature by (1) demonstrating how dynamic global work gets done in MNEs through meta-teams and teaming; (2) showing how meta-teams address some of the challenges of global work, such as fluid collaboration and multiple-team participation; and (3) providing new insights for teaming in context and temporary work.
AmbosB.SchlegelmilchB.2004. The use of international R&D teams: An empirical investigation of selected contingency factors. Journal of World Business, 39: 37-48.
2.
AmbosT. C.AmbosB.EichK. J.PuckJ.2016. Imbalance and isolation: How team configurations affect global knowledge sharing. Journal of International Management, 22: 316-332.
3.
BabaM.GluesingJ.RatnerH.WagnerK.2004. The contexts of knowing: Natural history of a globally distributed team. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 547-587.
4.
BarinagaE.2007. Cultural diversity at work: “National culture” as a discourse organizing an international project group. Human Relations, 60: 315-340.
5.
BarrettM.ObornE.2010. Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams. Human Relations, 63: 1199-1221.
6.
BartlettC. A.GhoshalS.1989. Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
7.
CharmazK.2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative research. London: Sage.
8.
ChevrierS.2003. Cross-cultural management in multinational project groups. Journal of World Business, 38: 141-149.
9.
CorbinJ.StraussA.1990. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13: 3-21.
10.
CorbinJ.StraussA.2008. Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
CramtonC. D.HindsP. J.2014. An embedded model of cultural adaptation in global teams. Organization Science, 25: 1056-1081.
12.
CummingsJ. N.HaasM. R.2012. So many teams, so little time: Time allocation matters in geographically dispersed teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33: 316-341.
13.
CunhaM. P. E.CunhaJ. V.2001. Managing improvisation in cross cultural virtual teams. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1: 187-208.
14.
DahlinK.WeingartL.HindsP.2005. Team diversity and information use. Academy of Management, 48: 1107-1123.
15.
DameronS.JoffreO.2007. The good and the bad: The impact of diversity management on co-operative relationships. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18: 2037-2056.
DozY. L.KosonenM.2008. Fast strategy: How strategic agility will help you stay ahead of the game. Edinburgh, Scotland: Pearson Education.
18.
DozY. L.SantosJ.WilliamsonP. J.2001. From global to metanational: How companies win in the knowledge economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
19.
DriedonksB. A.GeversJ. M.Van WeeleA. J.2014. Success factors for sourcing teams: How to foster sourcing team effectiveness. European Management Journal, 32: 288-304.
20.
EarleyC.MosakowskiE.2000. Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 26-49.
21.
EdmondsonA. C.2012. Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
22.
EdmondsonA. C.McManusS. E.2007. Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1246-1264.
23.
EdmondsonA.NembhardI.2009. Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26: 123-138.
24.
ElronE.Vigoda-GadotE.2006. Influence and political processes in cyberspace: The case of global virtual teams. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6: 295-317.
25.
EspinosaA. J.CummingsJ. N.WilsonJ. M.PearceB. M.2003. Team boundary issues across multiple global firms. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19: 157-190.
26.
EspinosaJ. A.SlaughterS. A.KrautR. E.HerbslebJ. D.2007. Familiarity, complexity, and team performance in geographically distributed software development. Organization Science, 18: 613-630.
27.
FitzsimmonsS.2013. Multicultural employees: A framework for understanding how they contribute to organizations. Academy of Management Review, 38: 525-549.
28.
GibbsJ.2009. Dialectics in a global software team: Negotiating tensions across time, space, and culture. Human Relations, 62: 905-935.
29.
GibsonC.GibbsJ.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: 451-495.
30.
GibsonC.VermeulenF.2003. Healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 202-239.
31.
GioiaD. A.CorleyK. G.HamiltonA. L.2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16: 15-31.
32.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L.1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine.
33.
HaasM.2006. Acquiring and applying knowledge in transnational teams: The roles of cosmopolitans and locals. Organization Science, 17: 367-384.
34.
HackmanR. J.WagemanR.2004. When and how team leaders matter. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26: 37-74.
35.
HajroA.PudelkoM.2010. An analysis of core-competences of successful multinational team leaders. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10: 175-194.
36.
HindsP. J.MortensenM.2005. Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16: 290-307.
37.
JarvenpaaS. L.LeidnerD. E.1999. Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organizational Science, 10: 791-815.
38.
JimenezA.BoeheD.TarasV.CaprarD.2017. Working across boundaries: Current and future perspectives on global virtual teams. Journal of International Management, 23: 341-349.
39.
JoshiA.LabiancaG.CaligiuriP.2002. Getting along long distance: Understanding conflict in a multinational team through network analysis. Journal of World Business, 37: 277-284.
40.
KanawattanachaiP.YooY.2007. The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 31: 783-808.
41.
KelloggK.OrlikowskiW.YatesJ.2006. Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17: 22-44.
42.
KozlowskiS. W. J.BellB. S.2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In BormanW. C.IlgenD. R.KlimoskiR. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, 12:333-375. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
43.
LagerströmK.AnderssonM.2003. Creating and sharing knowledge within a transnational team: The development of a global business system. Journal of World Business, 38: 84-95.
44.
LeeY. T.MasudaA.FuX.ReicheB. S.2018. Navigating between home, host, and global: Consequences of multicultural team members’ identity configurations. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4: 180-201.
45.
LevyO.LeeH.-J.JonsenK.PeiperlM. A.2019. Transcultural brokerage: The role of cosmopolitans in bridging structural and cultural holes. Journal of Management, 45: 417-450.
46.
LiJ.HambrickD.2005. Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 794-813.
47.
LundinR. A.SöderholmA.1995. A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11: 437-455.
48.
LunnanR.BarthT.2003. Managing the exploration vs. exploitation dilemma in transnational “bridging teams.” Journal of World Business, 38: 110-126.
MathieuJ. E.TannenbaumS. I.DonsbachJ. S.AlligerG. M.2014. A review and integration of team composition models moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40: 130-160.
51.
MathieuJ. M.MaynardT.RappT.GilsonL.2008. Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34: 410-476.
52.
MattarelliE.TagliaventiM. R.CarliG.GuptaA.2017. The role of brokers and social identities in the development of capabilities in global virtual teams. Journal of International Management, 23: 382-398.
53.
MaynardT.MathieuJ.RappT.GilsonL.2012. Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33: 342-365.
54.
MaznevskiM. L.ChudobaK. M.2000. Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11: 473-492.
55.
MendezA.2003. The coordination of globalized R&D activities through project teams organization: An exploratory empirical study. Journal of World Business, 38: 96-109.
56.
MetiuA.2006. Owning the code: Status closure in distributed groups. Organization Science, 17: 418-435.
57.
MortensenM.2015. Boundary multiplicity: Rethinking teams and boundedness in light of today’s collaborative environment. Working paper. Fontainebleau, France: INSEAD.
58.
MortensenM.HindsP.2002. Fuzzy teams: Boundary disagreement in distributed and collocated teams. In HindsP. J.KieslerS. (Eds.), Distributed work: 284-308. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
59.
MortensenM.WoolleyA. W.O’LearyM.2007. Conditions enabling effective multiple team membership. In CrowstonK.SieberS.WynnE. (Eds.), Virtuality and virtualization: 215-228. Boston, MA: Springer.
60.
OkhuysenG. A.LepakD.AshcraftK. L.LabiancaG.SmithV.SteensmaK.2013. Theories of work and working today. Academy of Management Review, 38: 491-502.
61.
OldhamG. R.HackmanR.2010. Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 463-479.
62.
O’LearyM.MortensenM.WoolleyA.2011. Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Academy of Management Review, 36: 461-478.
63.
O’SullivanA.O’SullivanS. L.2008. The performance challenges of expatriate supplier teams: A multi-firm case study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19: 999-1017.
64.
PuckJ.MohrA.RyglD.2008. An empirical analysis of managers’ adjustment to working in multi-national project teams in the pipeline and plant construction sector. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19: 2252-2267.
65.
SchweigerD.AtamerT.CaloriR.2003. Transnational project teams and networks: Making the multinational organization more effective. Journal of World Business, 38: 127-140.
66.
SinkovicsR. R.PenzE.GhauriP. N.2008. Enhancing the trustworthiness of qualitative research in international business. Management International Research, 48: 689-714.
67.
SuddabyR.2006. From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 633-642.
68.
TenzerH.PudelkoM.HarzingA.2014. The impact of language barriers on trust formation in multinational teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 45: 508-535.
69.
VahteraP.BuckleyP. J.AliyevM.CleggJ.CrossA. R.2017. Influence of social identity on negative perceptions in global virtual teams. Journal of International Management, 23: 367-381.
70.
VallasterC.2005. Cultural diversity and its impact on social interactive processes: Implications from an empirical study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 5: 139-163.
71.
WagemanR.GardnerH.MortensenM.2012. The changing ecology of teams: New directions for teams research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33: 301-315.
72.
WelchC. L.WelchD. E.TahvanainenM.2008. Managing the HR dimension of international project operations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19: 205-222.
73.
ZakariaN.2017. Emergent patterns of switching behaviors and intercultural communication styles of global virtual teams during distributed decision making. Journal of International Management, 23: 350-366.
74.
ZalanT.LewisG.2004. Writing about methods in qualitative research: Towards a more transparent approach. In Marschan-PiekkariR.WelchC. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business: 507-528. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
75.
ZimmermannA.SparrowP.2007. Mutual adjustment processes in international teams: Lesson for the study of expatriation. International Studies of Management and Organization, 37(3): 65-88.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
