Leader, employee and team

competences in dispersed work

settings

Prof. Matti Vartiainen, Work Psychology and Leadership, Department of Industrial

Engineering and Management

Time and Location: Monday, 28 January 2013

3:00-4:30 PM, CERAS Room 123, Stanford University

Content of my presentation

• Competences

• New ways of working require new types of

competences?

• Analyzing competence demands

• Analyzing competences on individual and team levels

• Studies 1, 2 and 3

• Conclusions

Competences -

What am I talking about?

RQ: What kinds of competences employees, leaders and teams

need when working in dispersed settings?

Developing Intangible Assets in Organizations to adapt and change (= learn)

Human -

capital

Structural

capital

Social capital

Competences

and professional

skills

Physical

and mental

health

Work

arrangements Occupational

safety

Knowledge

flow

Networks

Work relations

Customer relationships

Partner relationship

Supplier relationships

Imago

Brand

Health services

Organizational climate

Enterprise culture

Leadership and

management Compensation and

reward systems

Information

systems

Competence

Development

systems

Intellectual

Capital

Values

and internal

motivation

” Flow ”

Owner relationship

Emotional

intelligence Purpose

Vision

Goals

Financial and material capital intangible or intellectual capital

Need to identify and develop intangible assets in organizations

Adam Smith defined four types of fixed capital (which is characterized as that which affords a revenue or profit without circulating or changing masters): 1) useful machines, instruments of the trade; 2) buildings as the means of procuring revenue; 3) improvements of land and 4) human capital.

e.g. Edvinsson, L. & Malone, M.S. (1997); Sveiby, Karl Erik (1997)

Competences on three levels

• Three levels of competences:

(a) Strategic core competences reflecting resources and capabilities of the whole work system to achieve and maintain a competitive advantage

(b) Collective competences reflecting projects’ and teams’ joint capabilities to act flexibly according to the working context’s requirements, and

(c) Individual competences reflecting capabilities that an individual needs to carry out his/her task.

– Key competences refer to critical competences needed on different levels for good performance.

Core

competences

Capabilities

Hierarchy of competences (Javidan

1998, 62)

Competences

Resources

Increases

Value Difficulty

Core Competences

• ”The collective learning in the organization, especially how to co-ordinate diverse production skills and integrate multiple streams of technologies” (Prahalad ja Hamel 1990).

• A bundle of skills, experience and technologies that enables a company to provide a particular benefit to customers

• The capabilities that underlie leadership in a range of products or services

• A sum of learning across individual skills and organizational units

• A gateway to wide variety of potential product markets

Collective competences

Practical Competence

Ability to carry out the task

Interpersonal Competence

Interaction aimed at performing

the task

Sympathetic Competence

Social interaction without

connection to the task

Technical Competence Social Competence

Collective Competence

Hansson 2003

Individual competences

• Two perspectives:

– Work-oriented approach: competences are

regarded as a specific set of attributes of work and its demands.

– Worker-oriented approach: competences are primary seen as constituted by attributes possessed by workers, typically represented as knowledge, skills, abilities and personal traits required for effective work performance.

Traditional worker-oriented definitions

• “An underlying characteristic of a person which results in effective and/or superior performance in a job (Klemp 1980, see Boyatzis 1982, 21).

• “A job competency is an underlying characteristic of a person in that it may be a motive, trait, skill, aspect of one’s self-image or social role, or a body of knowledge he or she uses” (Boyatzis 1982, 21).

• “A competency is an underlying characteristic of an individual that is causally related to criterion-referenced effective and/or superior performance in a job or situation” (Spencer & Spencer 1993, 9).

• “Competence consists of knowledge, skills, attitudes, experiences and contacts that enable good performance in certain situations” (Sydänmaanlakka 2003, 107).

Are there generic individual key

competences?

• Definition of key competences:

– … contribute to highly valued outcomes at the individual and societal levels in terms of an overall successful life and a well-functioning society

– … are instrumental for meeting important, complex demands and challenges in a wide spectrum of contexts

– … are important for all individual

Rychen, S.D. & Salganik, L.H. (eds.) (2003) Key competencies

for a successful life and a well-functioning society. Göttingen:

Hogrefe & Huber.

New ways of working require

new types of competences?

Chaos of concepts when defining new ways of working

Mobile technology

Mobility

Micromobility

Multi-mobility

Full mobility

Virtual team

Dispersed team

Distributed organisation

Multi-locational knowledge

workers

Multi-locational work (‘E-nomads’) in Europe 2010

• E-nomads are people who do not work all the time at their

employers’ or their own business premises and habitually use

computers, the internet or email for professional purposes.

• A quarter of the European workers are e-nomads. The

incidence of e-nomads varies considerably between countries,

ranging from just above 5% in Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and

Turkey to more than 40% in the Netherlands, Denmark and

Sweden, and 45% in Finland.

• On average, e-nomads work longer hours, more often on

Sundays and more often in the evenings than other workers.

They also report having to work during their free time more often

than the average

Main place of work by gender and type of work, Eurofound (2012), Fifth European Working Conditions Survey,

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012.

Agnès Parent-Thirion, Greet Vermeylen, Gijs van Houten, Maija Lyly-Yrjänäinen, Isabella Biletta, JorgeCabrita, with the

assistance of Isabelle Niedhammer. At the time the fifth edition of the survey was carried out, in 2010, about 216 million

people were employed in the EU27 main reference area of the survey. A total of 44,000 workers from 34 European

countries were interviewed in 2010 on their working and employment conditions.

Multi-locational work in Europe 2010

Main place of work by gender and type of work, Eurofound (2012), Fifth European Working Conditions Survey,

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012.

Agnès Parent-Thirion, Greet Vermeylen, Gijs van Houten, Maija Lyly-Yrjänäinen, Isabella Biletta, JorgeCabrita, with the

assistance of Isabelle Niedhammer. At the time the fifth edition of the survey was carried out, in 2010, about 216 million

people were employed in the EU27 main reference area of the survey. A total of 44,000 workers from 34 European

countries were interviewed in 2010 on their working and employment conditions.

Prevalence and development in telework in USA 2001-2010

(The WorldatWork Special Report ‘Telework 2011’, p. 3).

Mil

lio

ns o

f e

mp

loye

es

01.12.2009 TKK

Mobile multi-locational work

Types of mobile multi-locational work

Low Continuous Frequency of changing locations

Nu

mb

er

of

wo

rk lo

ca

tio

ns

On the move

One site office

Mobile Toolkit

Pendulums

(E.g. A farmer and a nurse)

(E.g. teleworking

accountant)

On-site movers

Yo-yos

(E.g. Manager

or executive)

Nomads

(E.g. sales person)

Carriers

(E.g. a pilot)

HOWEVER! This is not all … as virtual and mobile group work has increased

… as virtual collaboration with others from multiple places

SiteB

SiteA

SiteC

Siten

SiteD

Suppliers

Subcontractors External customers

Project B

Project A

Portfolio managers

• Definition of mobile distributed (virtual) workgroup: A group of people who work interdependently with a shared purpose across space communicating mainly via ICT (adapted from Lipnack & Stamps, 2000), and all or part of them move in their work

Differences between virtual and conventional teams

SPATIAL DISTANCE Distributed

COMMUNICATION Technologically mediated

Virtual teams

SPATIAL DISTANCE Proximal

COMMUNICATION Face-to-Face

Convential teams

(Bell & Kozlowski 2002, 22)

Team types

• Global group’s or team’s members’ cross geographical and cultural boundaries globally.

• Using collaboration technologies does it a global virtual group or team.

• Physical mobility of at least some members makes it a global mobile virtual group or team.

• Global virtual teams are always to some degree dispersed crossing geographical borders, some team members may be physically mobile and work over time zones in simultaneous temporary limited projects using collaboration technologies to communicate with their team members and leaders.

Fully

Dispersed

Three

Subgroups

Two Subgroups

(From Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa 2009)

Different types of dispersed teams

Example of a global team under study

Analyzing competence demands

20.04.2010 Aalto University School of

Science of Technology

Genesis

TASK

COMPLEXITY

OUTCOMES

- Performance

- Well-being

INDIVIDUAL AND

COLLECTIVE REGULATIVE

PROCESSES

CONTEXTUAL COMPLEXITY

• Factors determining positive and negative outcomes, and user needs and design requirements:

(a) the complexity of collective joint tasks: are they routine vs. creative tasks, how interconnected they are, how ambiguous they are?

(b) the complexity of context or spaces (physical, virtual, mental/social) where a team is operating?

(c) internal, regulative processes of individual or collective subjects (e.g. means of communication and collaboration, inter-connectedness, dependency, trust, etc)

(a) Task complexity

• Task complexity has critical implications for the structure and processes of virtual teams: – Complicatedness of task: routine vs. creative

– Interconnectivity of tasks

– Ambiguity of tasks

Inform

coordinate

collaborate

cooperate

Small degree of group communication Large

Low complexity of task High

(b) Complexity of working contexts determines requirements (job demands)

Location

Mobility

Time

Temporariness

Diversity

Mode ofinteraction

- Number of sites? - Distance?

- Type of moving: ’on-site movers’, ’Yo-Yos’, ’Pendulums’, ’Nomads’, ’Carriers’? - Number of places visited? - Frequently of changing places?

- Time used in working at home, moving, main workplace, secondary and tertiary workplace? - Time used in working together? - Members working at the same time? - Members working in different time zones?

- Length of working together? Team’s developmental stage? Team members’ other projects? Each member’s time use in team?

- Age, sex, education, nationality, language, religion, individual characteristics

- Communication and collaboration tools? Frequency of use? Purpose of use?

Analysis of contextual complexity

The dimensions and sub-dimensions of contextual complexity provide possibilities for project

managers and team leaders to analyze and describe the type of the organizational

unit they are working with. To determine the type of team, answering to the following

questions may help:

NOT VERY

AT ALL MUCH

- This team’s members are working in different locations? 1 2 3 4 5

- This team’s members move a lot in their work? 1 2 3 4 5

- This team’s members work asynchronously? 1 2 3 4 5

- This team’s members work temporarily together? 1 2 3 4 5

- This team’s members backgrounds are very different? 1 2 3 4 5

- This team’s members use electronic communication tools

for communication and collaboration? 1 2 3 4 5

If the answer ‘NO’ to all these questions, the team is not virtual and dispersed at all.

(c) Internal, regulative processes of individual and collective subjects

• Individuals as acting subjects in dispersed work (Ep = external environment of individual, S1-S3 = dispersed sites, C = cognitive functions, r = internal world of individual, T1-T3 = different tasks, R1-R3 = roles, A1-A2 = attitudes) (Modified from Rice 1969)

S1

Ep

C

r S2

S3

T1 R1

A1

R2

T2

A2

R3

T3

Analysizing competences on

individual and team levels

Types of activity environments and competences

Unit and type

of competence

Stabile Disturbed Turbulent

Type of activity environment

Jo

b a

nd

ta

sk

re

qu

ire

me

nts

R

outine

F

lexib

le

C

reatv

e

Based on Emery, F. & Trist, E. (1997, orig. 1963)

The causal texture of organizational environments.

Demand defines internal structure of a competence

Demand-oriented

competence

Example of a need:

Ability co-operate

Internal structure

of a competence

Knowledge

Cognitive skills

Practical skills

Attitudes

Emotions

Values and ethics

Motivation

Rela

ted to

co

-opera

tion

Rychen, S.D. & Salganik, L.H. (eds.) (2003) Key competencies

for a successful life and a well-functioning society. Göttingen:

Hogrefe & Huber.

Framework to study compentence needs and competences

LOCATION

MOBILITY

DIVERSITY

MODE OF INTERACTION

TASKS

CHARACTERISTICS

(a) Individual

- Meanings, knowledge

- Attitude,

- Experience, traits

(b) Collective

- Shared knowledge

- Ability to work together

- Ability to interact and

-communicate

SKILFUL OPERATIVE

ACTIONS, i.e.,

process of doing,

performing, skills

RESULTS AND

OUTCOMES

- Quality

TIME

LOCATION

JOB DEMANDS IN DISPERSED WORKING CONTEXT

Individual competence (Spencer & Spencer 1993, 9)

• A competency is an underlying characteristic

of an individual that is causally related to

criterion-referenced effective and/or superior

performance in a job or situation” (Spencer &

Spencer 1993, 9).”

Individual

characteristics

Performance

Behavior

”Purpose” ”Activity” ”Result”

Motive

Characteritic

Self-image

Knowledge

Skill

Study 1: Individual and collective

competences in virtual project

organizations

See references 5, 6, 10

Purpose and research questions

• The purpose was to analyze and describe competences in a dispersed context in order to develop working and leadership practices in virtual organizations.

• The research question of the study was:

– What are the competences needed by project and team

leaders, and employees in virtual teams and projects?

Data and methods

• The data was collected in eleven companies in the electronics,

woodworking, road infrastructure, social work, and banking

industries in 2003-2005

• First, a context analysis was made in each company by collecting

documents and by interviewing company management.

• Four researchers interviewed (n=102): two executives, 31 team

leaders, and 65 team members. In addition, three executives

participated in a face-to-face focus group interview, one executive

was interviewed in a videoconference and two team members on

telephone.

• The interviews were conducted in Amsterdam, Dongguang,

Espoo, Helsinki, Hong Kong, Kuopio, Oulu and Tampere. The

interview sessions, ranging from 45 minutes to 2 hours, were

recorded and transcribed and then analyzed with Atlas/ti

Semi-structured interviews - themes

• Describe your work and role in this dispersed workgroup.

• How does the virtual work differ from co-located work in your opinion?

• Describe the special challenges and benefits that you and your group

have encountered when working in

1) geographically dispersed,

2) mobile,

3) across different time zones,

4) in a temporary / permanent manner,

5) with diverse group members, and

6) by mediated interaction?

• What sort of skills or competences do you need in your work?

• Which special competences do you need in a virtual setting?

• How about the other members’ competences (colleagues, team

leader)?

Diversity

Mode of interaction

Location

= a face-to-face organisation

Mobility

Time

Temporariness

Long working days

Increased responsibility

Loneliness, isolation

Fuzzy work-life boundary

Flexible working times

One-way communication

Co-ordination of tasks

Differences in ways of thingking

Local culture and habits

Different educational backgrounds

Cultural differences

Job tenure

Number of simultaneous projects

Turnover of colleagues and projects

Unanswered e-mails

Missing face-to-face contacts

Sharing local knowledge

Meagre feedback

Accumulated tasks in office

Time lag

Lack of ad-hoc meetings

Missing social network

Unclarity of goals and roles

Unclear career

Inequality of team members

Language

Information overflow

Social conflicts

Unclear communication

Availablity of team members

Late calls

Differences In project practices

Maintaining trust

Knowledge transfer between projects

Non-rich communication Building we-

spirit (identity)

Time used for co-ordination

Finding adequate workplaces

(Interviews, n= 102)

Findings 1: perceived challenges

Findings 2: Individual team member and leader competences (n=102) Characteristics Skilful operative actions

Employee: - Independence, self-motivation, self-management (n=51) - Cultural sensitivity (n=39) - Work experience and expertise (n=38) - Structured work style (n=33) - Trustworthiness, honesty, openness and responsible (n=28) - Cooperative (n=13) - Readiness to travel (n=13) - Patience (n=7)

Employee: - Communication skills (n=59) - Skills to use communication and collaboration tools (n=39) - Flexibility (n=31) - Proactive behavior (n=30) - Language skills (n=29) - Working processes compliance (n=28) - Written expression skills (n=25) - Control of multi-project complexity (n=22) - Ability to see the bigger picture (n=17) - Control of information flow (n=17)

Team Leader: - Assertiveness and determination (n=29) - Propensity to trust (n=22) - Earlier experience of virtual work (n=16) - People skills (n=16) - Trustworthiness, honesty, openness (n=9)

Team Leader: - Result-oriented management style (n=40) - Leadership actions (n=40) - Information sharing and comprehensive communication (n=37) - Coordination and organizing skills (n=14) - Time management (n=9) - Macro-management (n=7)

Findings 3: Collective team and organization competences (n=102) Characteristics Skilful operative actions

Team: - Defined roles and responsibilities (n=48) - Trust (n=39) - Goal clarity (n=36) - Communication practices (n=35) - Common operations models (n=31) - Commitment and we-spirit (n=30) - Common language and understanding (n=14) - Local expertise (n=6) - Cultural richness due to diversity (n=5)

Team: - Open and frequent communication (n=61) - Adequate face-to-face meetings (n=41) - Knowing the other team members (n=36) - Time difference enabling shift work (n=4)

Organization:

- Common IT-systems, communication and collaboration tools (n=58) - Common processes and guidelines (n=56) - Open culture (n=28) - Adequate resources and time (n=26) - Methods to utilize local knowledge (n=17)

Organization: - Management support (n=26) - Local ICT-support and maintenance (n=9)

Study 2: European survey -

competence challenges in global

collaboration

See reference 13

Research question and survey design

• Research question: What are the main challenges of the company when

operating outside Europe?

• Sample size

– n=1015 (~200 per country), data was collected in between 18th April and 5th

June, 2008

– 70-160 per country (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands,

Portugal, Sweden and U.K.)

• Interview duration

– 15-20 minutes on average (excluding initiation)

• Interview methodology: Computer Aided Telephone Interviewing

• Unit of observation

– Only companies of a certain size (5+ employees) because of uneven

coverage of micro enterprises in list sources

– Only companies that engage in global activities

• Unit of response

– Owners / CEOs / Heads of R&D / Heads of international operations

Findings: Competence challenges in global collaboration

0 10 20 30 40 50

(% “very often”, “often” or “sometimes”, Base: all SMEs with global activities

Problems regarding data

privacy

Problems regarding data security

Problems regarding protection of Intellectual property

Difficulty of making employees adapt their working times

Lack of interoperability of processes & ICT systems

Increasing stress among employees

Problems in organising work across time zones

Difficulty of building trust between collaboration partners

Problems due to regulatory barriers in host countries

Difficulty to meet face-to-face

when necessary

Problems caused by language or cultural barriers

Total sample Knowledge - intensive business services High - tech manufacturing

Medium - high - tech manufacturing

Total sample Knowledge - intensive business services High - tech manufacturing

Medium - high - tech manufacturing

Study 3: Leader and employee

competences in global settings

ARCHITECTS OY

See reference 8

Purpose and research questions

• The purpose was to analyze and describe competences in a dispersed context in order to develop working and leadership practices in global virtual teams.

• The research questions of the study was:

– Which special competences and characteristics of you and your team members are required to work in a global setting?

– Which leadership competences and characteristics does a leader need in a global setting??

Data and methods

• Collection of data (a) Secondary analysis of data from literature

(b) Semi-structured interview (n=103), i.e., target unit interview from 12 global companies - Team and project members, team leaders, executives

- Face-to-face and videoconference interviews

- Data was collected 2008-2011

• Analysis of data – Interview answers were transcribed and analysed

qualitatively by using a text-analysis program Atlas.ti

See: Future competences http://www.futurex.utu.fi/julkaisut_Future_Competences.pdf

Target unit interview - themes

• Which special competences and characteristics of you and your team members are required to work in a global setting?

• Which leadership competences and characteristics does a leader need in a global setting?

• How would you improve leadership in the global CWE?

Findings: Key competences of employees and leaders in global environments

Flexible (n=11)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Leader +

Focus on big picture /strategy (n=12) People

skills (n=11)

Management (n=14)

Have presence (n=12)

Use different

approaches(n=8)

Open minded (n=14)

Proactive (n=7) Outgoing/ systematic (n=6)

Employee

& Leader

Understanding

(cultural)

differences

(n=42) Communication skills (n=45)

= skills

= characteristics

Findings: Communication in detail (n=45) • Language skills

• Verbal and written communication skills – Clarity

• Outgoing (outward acting) and systematic(n=6) – Opinions differed -> cannot be together?

• Proactive (n=7). Listens and asks specific questions

• Efficient use of technologies – Video -> Voice-> email

• Increasing communication

Findings: Understanding (cultural) differences (n=42)

• Cultural differences (n=42) – Understands: local customs, what motivates people and how affairs are

taken care in different places

• Open-minded (n=14)

• Flexible (n=11) – Ability to act and think globally

– A ‘must’ in dispersed working

– Workday is not 9-17

Findings: Leader-specific competences

• Competence needs do not ‘an sich’ differ from ‘local leadership’, but distribution

creates different challenges

• Management mind-set (n=14)

– Follow progress

• Focus on big picture and strategy (n=12)

– Understanding markets

– Communicating broader picture to team members

– Setting a common direction and creating common processes

• Having presence (n=12)

– Visiting other locations/offices

– Being active in virtual spaces

• People skills (n=11)

– Learning to motivate, communicate and deal with different people

• Ability to use different approaches (n=8)

– Changing behaviour according to situations

Conclusions:

it is all about cultural understanding

and communication

Employee, leader and team competences needed dispersed work settings

(a) Employee

- Characteristics: independence, self-management, cultural sensitivity, open-mindedness

- Operative actions: communication skills, skills to use communication and collaboration tools

(b) Team leader

- Characteristics: assertiveness and determination, open-mindedness, management mind-set

- Operative actions: communication, understanding cultural differences, result-oriented management style, leadership actions

- Findings fit quite well with earlier studies (secondary data), see references.

– Collective competences needed by teams, projects and organizations in dispersed settings? (a) Team

- Characteristics: defined roles and responsibilities, trust

- Operative actions: open and frequent communication, adequate face-to-face meetings

(b) Organization - Characteristics: common IT-systems, communication and

collaboration tools, common processes and guidelines

- Operative actions: management support, local ICT-support and maintenance, overcoming language or cultural barriers, organizing face-to-face meetings when necessary

Summary of team member and leader competences – top frequencies

STUDIES Characteristics Skilful operative actions

Employee

Study 1

(n=102)

- Independence, self-motivation, self-management (n=51) - Cultural sensitivity (n=39)

- Communication skills (n=59) - Skills to use communication and collaboration tools (n=39)

Study 3

(n=103)

- joint

- Open minded (n=14) - Flexible (n=11)

- Communication (n=45) - Understanding (cultural) differences (n=42)

Team leader

Study 1

(n=102)

- Assertiveness and determination (n=29) - Propensity to trust employees (n=22)

- Result-oriented management style (n=40) - Leadership actions (n=40)

Study 3

(n=103)

joint

- Open minded (n=14) - Flexible (n=11)

- Communication (n=45) - Understanding (cultural) differences (n=42)

Study 3

(n=103)

Leader-

specific

- Management mind-set (n=14) - Focus on big picture and strategy (n=12) - Having presence (n=12)

- Follow progress (n=14) - Understanding markets, communicating broader picture to team members, setting a common direction and creating common processes (n=12) - Visiting other locations/offices, being active in virtual spaces (n=12)

Summary of collective competences – top frequencies

STUDIES Characteristics Skilful operative actions

Team

Study 1

(n=102)

- Defined roles and responsibilities (n=48) - Trust (n=39)

- Open and frequent communication (n=61) - Adequate face-to-face meetings (n=41)

Organization

Study 1

(n=102)

- Common IT-systems, communication and collaboration tools (n=58) - Common processes and guidelines (n=56)

- Management support (n=26) - Local ICT-support and maintenance (n=9)

Study 2

(n=

around

488)

- - Overcoming language or cultural barriers - Meeting face-to-face when necessary

Critique on rationalistic approaches

Phenomenography (Sandberg 2000, 11): – The rationalistic ”operationalizations” of attributes into quantitative

measures often result in abstract and overly narrow and simplified descriptions that may not adequately represent the complexity of competence in work performance.

– The predefined competence categories may confirm a researcher’s own model of competence, rather than capture workers’ competence.

– However: in this study, competence categories did not exist beforehand, but emerged from interview data!

Future challenges

• Competence descriptions are ’inherited’ reminding

concepts of f-t-f competences: ’bounded rationality’ or

’delayed mindset’?

• Context matters: as the cultural understanding issues

emerged, both interview data (n=102, n=103) could be

analysed ftom the viewpoint of culturally different

interviewees!

• It would be important to identify positive features in

dispersed work settings (enablers), in addition to

disablers!

• Practical implications on organizational, team and

individual levels should be developed

Literature 1. Andriessen, E. & Vartiainen, M. (Eds) (2006) Mobile virtual work – A new paradigm? Heidelberg: Springer.

2. Bosch-Sijtsema, P.M., Ruohomäki, V. & Vartiainen, M. (2010) Knowledge work productivity in distributed teams. Journal of

Knowledge Management 13, 6, 533-546.

3. Bosch-Sijtema, P., Fruchter, R., Vartiainen, M. & Ruohomäki, V. (2011) Challenging new ways of working for remote managers

in global collaborative work environments. In: Kelliher, C. & Richardson, J. (Eds.) New ways of organizing work. Developments,

Perspectives, and experiences, pp. 160-175. New York: Routledge.

4. Kasvi, J.J.J., Vartiainen, M. & Hailikari, M. (2003) Managing knowledge and knowledge competences in projects and project

organisations. International Journal of Project Management 21, 8, 571-582.

5. Kokko, N., Vartiainen, M. & Hakonen, M. (2003) Collective competencies in virtual organizations. In: Luczak, H. & Zink, K.J.

(Eds.) Human factors in organizational design and management – VII. Re-designing work and macroergonomics – future

perspectives and challenges, pp. 403-408. Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Human Factors in

Organizational Design and Management held in Aachen, Germany, October 1-2, 2003.

6. Kokko, N., Vartiainen, M. & Lönnblad, J. (2007) Individual and collective competences in virtual project organizations. The

Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks 8, March 2007, 28-52.

7. Korpelainen, E., Kira, M. & Vartiainen, M. (2010) Self-determined adoption of an ICT system in a work organization. Journal of

Organizational and End User Computing 22, 4, 51-69.

8. Lönnblad, J. & Vartiainen, M. (2012) Future competences – Competences for new ways of working. Publication series B:12.

University of Turku, Brahea Centre for Training and Development. 43 p. ISSN 1798-8195 (internet), ISBN 978-951-29-5063-8

(pdf)

9. Ruuska, I. & Vartiainen, M. (2003) Critical project competences – a case study. The Journal of Workplace Learning 15, 7, 307-

312.

10. Verburg, R., Bosch-Sijtsema, P.M. & Vartiainen, M. (2013) Getting it done: Critical success factors for project managers in

virtual work settings. International Journal of Project Management 31, 1, 68-79.

11. Vartiainen, M., Kokko, N. & Hakonen, M. (2003) Competences in virtual organizations. In: Proceedings of the 3rd

International Conference on Researching Work and Learning, 25-27 July 2003, Book I, pp. 209-219. Tampere, Finland.

12. Vartiainen, M. (2008) Facilitating mobile and virtual work. In: Wangel, C. (Ed.) 21st Century Management, A Reference

Handbook, Vol. II, pp. 348-360. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13. Vartiainen, M., Hakonen, M., Koivisto, S., Mannonen, P., Nieminen, M.P., Ruohomäki V. & Vartola, A. (2007) Distributed and

mobile work – places, people and technology. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.