Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering
Master Thesis Project, 30 hp | Design and Product Development - Management
Spring Term 2020 | LIU-IEI-TEK-A--20/03757--SE
Multi-Site Leadership – Coordinating and Leading Virtual Teams
Lova Hallberg
Ida Kylefalk
Supervisor: Ksenia Onufrey
Examiner: Thomas Magnusson
Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
013-28 10 00, www.liu.se
ii
Abstract This study aims to recognize how virtual teams should be coordinated and led in organizations that
operate at multiple sites. To fulfill the purpose of the study, a literature review on previous research
on virtual teams was implemented. Further, a qualitative study including interviews with leaders
at different levels at Ericsson was conducted to gain empirical data on how leadership in virtual
teams works. The interviews were semi-structured with the purpose of not directing the leaders
towards only bringing up the challenges that emerged in the literature review but to also bring up
new perspectives.
The major challenges that virtual teams face, thus challenges that the leaders must somehow
address, can be divided into three areas: communication, coordination and location. Concerning
communication, it is important that leaders of virtual teams set the means for communications,
define ground rules and make sure that the right kind of communication is used for the right
purpose. Further, it is important to communicate more often than if the team would have been co-
located and actively try to build trust and cohesion within the team by being transparent and honest.
To meet face to face with the team members, especially in the beginning when the team is created,
is important both for understanding (virtual communication becomes easier afterward) and for the
building of trust and cohesion. In the area coordination it is important for the leader to clearly
define the roles of each team member and how the roles as well as the team efforts contribute to a
larger picture. There is no perfect distribution that is applicable to all virtual teams, each team must
find their balance concerning how many team members that should be positioned at each site. In
general, to push responsibilities down in the hierarchy is a suitable role structure for virtual teams.
The location area includes challenges such as different languages, cultures and collaboration
across different time zones. It is important to have an operative language that all team members
understand and master. When creating a new team, it is important that the leader or the person
creating it, is aware of how cultural differences impact, so that the challenges can be addressed
properly, and the benefits of diversity as well as the expanded labor pool, can be utilized. Working
across different time zones brings benefits such as more hours of the day can be used, but it also
includes challenges, such as limited real-time communication. Thus, the optimal time overlap is
difficult to define, but generally, leaders prefer involving fewer time zones and large time overlaps.
iii
Acknowledgements It is with the deepest gratitude we would like to thank all the people who have participated, made
contributions and shown their support for our Master Thesis Project during the spring of 2020.
First, we would like to bring forward the leaders from our case company Ericsson in Kista and
Lund, Sweden and Austin, the United States of America, for their valuable contribution to the
study. Furthermore, we would like to show our greatest appreciation to our exceptional supervisors
Sara Karlsson and Pierre Rohdin at Ericsson for their guidance and support during this project.
Likewise, we would like to show our deepest appreciation to our supervisor Ksenia Onufrey and
our examiner Thomas Magnusson at Linköping University (LiU) for guidance, constructive
criticism and support throughout the whole study. We also want to give a special thanks to our
opponent group, Lennart Larsson and Eddie Lundquist for their valuable insights and their
excellent guidance throughout this study.
This Master Thesis Project is the end of our academic career at Linköping University (LiU), the
Division of Project, Innovations and Entrepreneurship (PIE) and we are now looking forward to
taking on new challenges.
iv
Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Description and Formulation of the Problem ................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Ericsson Background and Problem Analysis ............................................................ 2
1.2 Purpose and Research Question ....................................................................................... 2
1.3 Delimitations .................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Structure of the Master Thesis ......................................................................................... 3
2 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Defining Virtual Teams .................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Why Virtual Teams? ................................................................................................. 4
2.1.2 Leadership in Virtual Teams ..................................................................................... 5
2.2 Challenges with Virtual Teams ........................................................................................ 6
2.2.1 Challenge: Building Trust and Cohesion .................................................................. 6
2.2.2 Challenge: Information Communication Technology Tools .................................... 7
2.2.3 Challenge: Role Structure and Distribution of Human Resources ........................... 7
2.2.4 Challenge: Different Time Zones, Cultures and Languages ..................................... 8
2.3 Categorization of Challenges and Synthesis .................................................................. 10
2.3.1 Precise Research Questions .................................................................................... 11
2.4 Addressing the Challenges ............................................................................................. 12
2.4.1 Critical Area 1: Communication ............................................................................. 12
2.4.2 Critical Area 2: Coordination.................................................................................. 15
2.4.3 Critical Area 3: Location ........................................................................................ 17
3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 20
3.1 Research Design ............................................................................................................. 20
3.2 Literature Review and Empirical Study ......................................................................... 21
3.2.1 Literature Review.................................................................................................... 21
3.2.2 Study of Ericsson .................................................................................................... 22
3.2.3 Ethical Principles .................................................................................................... 27
3.2.4 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 27
3.3 Methodological Discussion ............................................................................................ 28
3.3.1 Research Design...................................................................................................... 28
3.3.2 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 31
v
3.3.3 Trustworthiness and Authentication ....................................................................... 31
4 Empirical Findings and Analysis .......................................................................................... 33
4.1 General View on Virtual Teams..................................................................................... 33
4.1.1 Why Virtual Teams? ............................................................................................... 33
4.1.2 Performance and Success ........................................................................................ 34
4.2 Communication .............................................................................................................. 35
4.2.1 Building Trust and Cohesion .................................................................................. 35
4.2.2 Information Communication Technology Tools .................................................... 37
4.2.3 Balance the Communication Flow .......................................................................... 39
4.2.4 Analysis: Communication ....................................................................................... 41
4.3 Coordination ................................................................................................................... 46
4.3.1 Role Structure and Distribution of Human Resources ............................................ 46
4.3.2 Leadership Characteristics ...................................................................................... 51
4.3.3 Analysis: Coordination ........................................................................................... 52
4.4 Location .......................................................................................................................... 57
4.4.1 Different Time Zones, Cultures and Languages ..................................................... 57
4.4.2 Analysis: Location .................................................................................................. 60
5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 65
5.1 Conclusion: Communication .......................................................................................... 65
5.2 Conclusion: Coordination .............................................................................................. 66
5.3 Conclusion: Location ..................................................................................................... 67
6 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 69
7 Recommendations and Future Research ............................................................................... 72
7.1 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 72
7.1.1 Recommendations Addressing Communication ..................................................... 72
7.1.2 Recommendations Addressing Coordination ......................................................... 72
7.1.3 Recommendations Addressing Location ................................................................ 73
7.1.4 Recommendations from the Discussion.................................................................. 73
7.2 Future Research .............................................................................................................. 74
8 References ............................................................................................................................. 75
Appendix 1: Information about Interview Study .......................................................................... 78
Appendix 2: Interview Questionnaire ........................................................................................... 79
vi
Appendix 3: Consent to Participate in the Interview Study .......................................................... 81
List of Figures Figure 1: Structure of the report...................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Time zone overlap’s impact on accuracy and speed ..................................................... 10
Figure 3: Structure of the methodology section ............................................................................ 20
Figure 4: How input was collected and where the results can be found ....................................... 21
Figure 5: Process of making the interview questionnaire ............................................................. 23
List of Tables Table 1: Synthetization of the literature review ............................................................................ 11
Table 2: Information about each leader’s experience ................................................................... 25
Table 3: How often the leaders communicate with their team members virtually ....................... 40
1
1 Introduction The introduction presents the problem background where the overall problem is presented. Here
one can also take part in a small introduction of the case company Ericsson, which is also
responsible for the mission of this thesis. Lastly, the purpose, delimitations and the structure of the
master thesis are presented.
1.1 Description and Formulation of the Problem
Globalization has changed the way that the world operates. To communicate and interact with
people at distance is becoming easier and easier (Lawlor, 2007). As Zander, Zettinig and Mäkelä
(2013) describe it, we are on our way to a truly multinational environment. The world is becoming
one single market space in which companies lay out their strategies and goals. DuFrene and
Lehman (2016) define a virtual team as a group of individuals whose communication is primarily
via technological solutions for achieving their common goals. Minton-Eversole (2012) describes
a virtual team as a team that works across organizational-, space- and time limitations and who
primarily interact with each other by using electronic communication. Further, DuFrene and
Lehman (2016) claim that the advancement in technologies is what enables virtual teams and that
leaders worldwide find it necessary to work with virtual teams to be successful in the global
business environment. The geographical dispersion that virtual teams include can be within a
workplace, within a nation, or across several time zones, including several cultures.
Zander et al. (2013) claim that the increased usage of virtual teams is a result of the pressure that
the globalization contributes to in the form of cost reductions and the benefits of knowledge
sharing in a wider range. Further, global virtual teams bring advantages in capabilities and
expertise that are no longer locked in a geographical perspective and therefore can be integrated
and utilized to a larger extent. As mentioned, several advantages are coming from using virtual
teams, but this way of working also includes challenges and puts a demand on the leaders of the
team that regular face to face leadership does not. For example, there seem to be doubts about how
effective it is to use virtual teams as a tool for achieving goals within organizations even though
these kinds of teams increase (Puranova, 2014, as cited in Udom, 2017). According to Levasseur
(2012, as cited in Udom, 2017), this is because less than one out of three virtual teams truly
succeed. The overall problem stated is that with virtual teams, there are unique challenges around
the leadership style in addition to the traditional co-located teams. Also, the leadership needs to be
adapted to situations that may lack nonverbal cues and most likely include cultural differences,
language barriers, and different time zones (DuFrene & Lehman, 2016; Edwards & Wilson, 2004).
The subject to be investigated is how leaders in a virtual team environment should coordinate and
lead their teams to be successful. To make the analysis and recommendations valid, this master
thesis is conducted in collaboration with Ericsson to enable analyses of real-life experiences.
2
1.1.1 Ericsson Background and Problem Analysis
Ericsson was founded in 1876 and is the principal provider of Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) to different service providers. The company considers themselves being game
changers considering technology and services. Ericsson’s portfolio includes digital services,
managed services and emerging businesses, these powered by 5G and Internet of things (IoT)
platforms (Ericsson, 2019). According to line managers Sara Karlsson and Pierre Rohdin (2020),
(working at one of Ericsson’s department that develop hardware), they mainly conduct business
in multi-site projects in Sweden (Kista and Lund) and the United States of America (Austin). The
leadership levels that are studied within this department are divided into line manager level, project
lead level and program lead level. These leadership levels are investigated because those types of
leaders all have teams that work virtually. The teams within this department mainly use the agile
framework Scrum in their daily work.
In an interview with Karlsson and Rohdin (2020), it appears that the leaders at Ericsson have a lot
of information and educational programs available concerning on-site leadership, meaning teams
that are positioned on the same site as the leaders. However, there is less information available
regarding how to structure and organize leadership that works across the product development unit
(PDU) boundaries, namely leadership in virtual teams at multiple sites. As for the few educational
programs regarding virtual leadership that are available at Ericsson, it is not mandatory to
accomplish any of the programs. Further, Karlsson and Rohdin (2020) claim that the current
leaders at Ericsson do not know if their present leadership style or the way that they organize the
teams, is the most appropriate for multi-site projects.
Accordingly, even though the company today works with virtual teams actively, both in this
specific hardware development department and within other departments, it can be stated that there
are no clear guidelines for the leaders to follow in the subject virtual teams. As follows, Ericsson
indicates a need to identify areas that should be considered when coordinating and leading teams
at multi-sites in the way that a leader, can make the virtual team as efficient as possible. What to
take into consideration is that there could be different factors that make a virtual leadership
successful, or less successful. Consequently, this type of information is requested in a way that
Ericsson can use it to improve their leadership in virtual teams, and thereby improve the efficiency
of the teams and Ericsson’s operations.
1.2 Purpose and Research Question
Leadership in general is a well-researched topic with several accepted and established theories.
Leadership in virtual teams is also a topic that has been researched a lot, however, there is a lack
of well-established theories about the subject. This, partly because the conditions for virtual teams
constantly change as technology advances. Consequently, this master thesis is conducted with the
purpose to identify what leaders of virtual teams should work with to lead their teams to success,
with the current preconditions. The following research question is investigated:
How is it possible to coordinate and lead teams in organizations that run projects at multiple sites,
using virtual teams?
3
1.3 Delimitations
As mentioned in the background, there are several levels within the leadership hierarchy at
Ericsson that this study does not investigate. Levels below project lead level such as team lead
level and informal leaders in the teams are not included in the interviews. Leaders at a higher level
in the hierarchy, such as the chief executive officer and the positions that report to those positions
are not included either. All interviews are conducted with leaders within one specific hardware
development department at Ericsson, meaning that perspectives from other departments are not
included in the thesis. Leadership at a one-on-one level is not analyzed either. Thus, how to lead
one specific person is not investigated, instead, factors that affect the virtual leadership in general,
are included. More detailed factors or goals such as self-fulfillment, an increase of motivation
among specific employees with others, are therefore not considered. Organizational culture is
looked at as an influencing factor taken into consideration. However, differences between different
countries are not defined in detail, nor compared. There are several kinds of multi-site or remote
leadership styles. In this case, the study does only investigate multi-site projects where the various
parts are to some extent connected and thereby, they are dependent on each other’s results.
Meaning that virtual teams that are working totally independently with their projects are thus not
included. Information from Ericsson’s present virtual leadership program called Leading in a
Virtual Team Program (LVT program) is excluded with the argument that the program is not
mandatory for leaders at Ericsson and only two of the interviewed leaders have attended it.
1.4 Structure of the Master Thesis
After the introduction, the structure of the master thesis includes a theoretical framework in which
previous research on the subject is presented. Following is the method chapter where the methods
used in the study are presented and discussed. After the method, one can take part in the empirical
findings and analysis where the results of the methods are presented and analyzed together with
the theory chapter. Followingly, the conclusions are presented, where answers to the research
questions are summarized. In the discussion section, empirical findings that contribute to a wider
perspective of the study are discussed. Finally, recommendations and future research are presented.
See Figure 1 below for the illustration of the entire structure.
Figure 1: Structure of the report
IntroductionTheoretical Framework
MethodologyEmpirical
Findings and Analysis
Conclusions DiscussionRecommendations
and Future Research
4
2 Theoretical Framework As the purpose of the master thesis is to investigate how to coordinate and lead teams in
organizations that run projects at multiple sites using virtual teams; the theoretical framework
highlights what previous researchers in the field have defined as virtual teams, leadership in
virtual teams and what they have displayed as challenges with the concept. Those challenges are
further investigated in the following section by identifying how the challenges can be addressed
through various actions, especially from a leader’s perspective.
2.1 Defining Virtual Teams
According to Ivanaj and Bozon (2016), researchers are using different terms to outline virtual
teams depending on the dimension that is considered. Consequently, virtual teams are either
described as a team of individuals that are working together or as a whole unit set up in a
comparatively complex context. Mohrman (1998) describes virtual teams as a group of people
situated at different locations, often working in different companies or business components who
shares responsibility for either a shared function or task, service or product, and who are dependent
on each other to carry out their responsibilities. Thus, they must work collaboratively to
accomplish their responsibilities. According to Zander et al. (2013), virtual teams are defined as
teams that are dispersed at different locations, including several cultures and languages. Malhotra,
Majchrzak and Rosen (2007) claim that besides virtual teams being geographically separated,
virtual teams conduct work at a cross-functional level with highly linked tasks, which declares
unique leadership tasks. Piccolo and Ford (2017, as cited in Udom, 2017) claim that it has been
possible to use virtual teams for the reason of advancements in technologies. Communication in
virtual teams is mainly conducted through technological solutions which are also how the activities
are coordinated (Zander et al., 2013).
In this study, the designation virtual teams are used as the only definition of these types of
dispersed teams to avoid confusion. Also, virtual teams in turn are defined as teams where the
team members are placed on at least two different locations but still somehow work together.
Different locations can mean everything from team members located in different countries, to team
members located in different places in the same building. The requirement for virtual is that the
team members do not communicate directly face to face with each other but use virtual tools to
communicate. The boundary of being a team is that one person works with at least one other person
in a common assignment.
2.1.1 Why Virtual Teams?
Virtual teams are stated by Turmel (2010, as cited in DuFrene & Lehman, 2015) as necessary for
organizations that operate in a rapidly changing environment so that they can become or remain
strategic in their operations while working across the globe. Su, Dong and Liang (2014; Szewc,
2013, as cited in Udom 2017) point out the benefits of using virtual teams such as the flexibility it
brings, competitiveness and cost savings. Davis and Bryant (2003) state that, if virtual teams are
successfully distributed, it will create competitive advantages as it expands the pool of available
human resources. DuFrene and Lehman (2016) mention several advantages of using virtual teams,
such as that it enables the organization to minimize the inconvenience of gathering all team
5
members at one specific location. It further saves time, making it possible to be productive at times
when employees otherwise are traveling. Thus, the efficiency for both employers and employees
are claimed to be increased. Concerning employers, Dufrene and Lehman (2016) state that virtual
teams may remove layers of management and time spent on bureaucratic processes. As an
employee, this kind of team is stated as beneficial as it increases flexibility in the balance between
work and personal life. The labor pool expands as individuals that could not take part when
working traditionally, can participate when using virtual teams. That can contribute to and
encourage increased diversity among teams and to better decision making as talents can be
distributed over the workforce (DuFrene & Lehman, 2016).
In a questionnaire where almost 380 randomly selected human resource professionals participated,
53 % of the participants of those who use virtual teams, stated a need for talent in different parts
of the world since their company faces a more global focus (Minton-Eversole, 2012). Continuing,
Minton-Eversole (2012) claims that around 39 % of the participants that are using virtual teams
said that their organization uses virtual teams for the improvement of their productivity and to
reduce travel costs. Nearly the same percentage (about 37 %) claim that virtual teams are being
used to cooperate more towards global business since work projects are becoming more global
(Minton-Eversole, 2012).
2.1.2 Leadership in Virtual Teams
There are several definitions of leadership in virtual teams and how the leadership differentiates
from a co-located leadership conducted when working with face to face interactions. Hertel,
Geister and Konradt (2005) define leaders of virtual teams as leaders of teams that are distributed
and mainly communicate and coordinate their work through technological communication tools.
Fisher and Fisher (2001) define leaders in virtual teams as boundary managers and distance
managers. Traditionally, leaders conduct supervision that focuses on the transforming processes
and the responsibilities within the team, which according to Fisher and Fisher (2001), is not
possible in the same way in virtual teams. Boundary managers teach the team how to create
assignments, make schedules for vacations and authorize expenditures for example, instead of
doing it in the traditional way, where the leader accomplishes those tasks by themselves. Further,
managers that are not co-located with their teams focus more on the boundary issues, the
surrounding environment of the team. That includes for example interface issues with other teams,
interaction with customers and salespersons, estimation of competition and market opportunities,
building communication bridges between the team members and other important groups, as well
as enabling development within the team etcetera (Fisher & Fisher, 2001). All the mentioned
examples are stated as included in the boundary; thus, the boundary manager/distance manager
handles those things in a way that improves team performance and the chance of success. A multi-
site leader is according to Edger (2012), defined as someone accountable for the performance range
of two or more standard managed sites. Zander et al. (2013) state that the role of a leader is no
longer what it used to be. Now, leaders are working remotely, as global virtual teams are becoming
more commonly used. Umbreit (1989, as cited in Edger, 2012) claims that it is crucial for a new
multi-site leader to fast pick up how to delegate authority. According to DasGupta (2011) the goals
of leadership in virtual teams are the same in traditional face to face leadership but how one
accomplishes the goals, is different when leading virtual teams. In virtual teams, the leaders must
6
implement the goals by using electronic solutions as the team is distributed at different locations
and may never meet in real life. These leaders are also stated to face new kinds of challenges, what
those might be are investigated in the following section.
In this paper, the leaders of this kind of teams are defined as leaders in virtual teams to avoid a
mixture of different definitions that might create confusion.
2.2 Challenges with Virtual Teams
This section presents challenges that previous studies have identified as important. The challenges
are more about the virtual teams themselves, thus the challenges that the teams face, which
represents what the leader must consider in order to lead effectively. To lead effectively, in this
case, means to create conditions for the teams that enable their work to flow, that the team members
receive the support they need to be prosperous and meet quality requirements within given time
frames. The challenges are presented in no order of importance to create an overall picture.
2.2.1 Challenge: Building Trust and Cohesion
According to DuFrene and Lehman (2016), big challenges that virtual teams face are for example
lack of nonverbal cues (facial expressions, voice intonation and gestures depending on how the
communication takes place), isolation (depending on personal preferences isolation might make
one feel socially unemployed) and lack of cohesion. The lack of cohesion is brought up as a result
of the lack of face to face interaction, not being able to talk in the hallway for example, further
complicates the opportunity to build relations (DuFrene & Lehman, 2016). Zander et al. (2013)
explain that the lack of face to face interaction results in several challenges for leaders. For
example, the lack of cues, such as nonverbal ones, makes the sharing of (especially tacit)
knowledge more complicated to achieve. The difficulties of understanding cues, challenges
regarding team-building and the issue with isolation as a result of working at different sites, are
also brought up by Edwards and Wilson (2004) as well as by Eikenberry and Turmel (2018).
Eikenberry and Turmel (2018) bring it up from the perspective of the leader, that as a leader
working remotely, it can cause the feeling of isolation as well as making the communication more
complex since less nonverbal cues are communicated.
According to Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999), the environment around virtual teams is tainted with
uncertainties that surround questions such as: Are other team members getting the messages? Do
they have any technical problems? How is their commitment? These types of uncertainties can
make the creation of trust more difficult and challenge both the durability and the viability, of
global virtual teams. According to Zander et al. (2013), the creation of trust can vary from one
culture to another, making the building of trust in virtual teams including several cultures more
difficult. DuFrene and Lehman (2016) state that the sharing of information tends to be to a lower
degree at first in virtual teams than in co-located teams, even though this tends to improve over
time. Eikenberry and Turmel (2018) emphasize the challenge of communication. If leaders do not
communicate frequently and consistently in several ways, the team might lose focus on what is
important. Due to the complications with team-building, the members can become less
comfortable with confronting each other when their participation decreases which further hampers
the team-building (Edwards & Wilson, 2004). Continuing, Avolio and Kahai (2003) state that
7
employees that mainly have their interaction with their leader by using technology can feel that
their opinions are not as important. The fact that real-life interaction is restricted or does not exist
at all, affect the ability to build trust within the team, which is something that Zander et al. (2013)
state as helpful for enabling knowledge sharing of both explicit and tacit knowledge to a higher
grade. To develop that level of trust is challenging when working with virtual teams.
2.2.2 Challenge: Information Communication Technology Tools
According to Dufrene and Lehman (2016) the commonly held view of experts is that the outcome
of virtual teams depends on the technology to 10 % and 90 % depends on the people. Looking at
the technological challenges, Edwards and Wilson (2004) point out the importance of spending
time choosing what kind of technology that should be used for both inter- and intrateam
communication. To install the technology across all sites and to become comfortable using it, are
considered as important factors before implementing virtual teams. Edwards and Wilson (2004)
mention that in real-life situations the case is usually that the teams have to familiarize themselves
with the technology along the way. Further, they state that all members of the team must have
enough knowledge to handle the software programs being used, as one person’s inability may
disrupt the whole communication process and thereby the working process. Similarly, Eikenberry
and Turmel (2018) highlight that skills and impact are important as those factors often can cause
big problems. Malhotra et al. (2007) state that team norms must be established for the use of
technology for communication and that they frequently must be revisited. Avolio and Kahai (2003)
emphasize the challenge of having teams where some team members are almost only using ICT
solutions to communicate with each other when other parts of the team meet regularly, and around
90 % of their communication is taking place face to face. That creates challenges as the team
members that rely on communication through technological solutions, may feel like their opinions
are of less value and not considered to the same extent as for the team members that are situated
at the same place as the leader. Another consequence stated by Avolio and Kahai (2003) is that the
risk for misinterpretations increases when using ICT tools.
2.2.3 Challenge: Role Structure and Distribution of Human Resources
A result of using virtual teams is that the labor pool expands. Edwards and Wilson (2004) mention
how this can create challenges, for example, there is no guarantee that the utilization rate of the
labor pool is increased even though the pool is expanded. There is a risk that the team leader might
only choose or recommend individuals who they are familiar with (thus not necessarily the best
person suited); consequently, having an impact on both the role structure and the performance of
the team. Zander et al. (2013) bring up how motivation matters when forming the team. The
authors make a distinction between motivation that is autonomous, meaning the team members’
willingness to engage, and controlled motivation, which means having to engage the team
members. This infers that there can be a lack of motivation even before the newly formed team
begin to work together, as there can be an unwillingness to cooperate in virtual teams and that is
defined as an acute problem. As the labor pool expands, the challenge to choose team sponsors
(persons that carry the team throughout the organization and take on responsibility if the team
fails) emerges as the team might be distributed across several locations (Edwards & Wilson, 2004).
8
Another challenge connected to role structure is a lack of coordination (DuFrene & Lehman, 2016).
Being able to coordinate effectively is considered more difficult due to that team roles do not
emerge as easily when not meeting in person. Edwards and Wilson (2004) further mention factors
such as performance monitoring and evaluation. For example, it is considered challenging to
determine who is the best person to give feedback. For virtual teams to work effectively, there is
a need for extensive administration from project management (Edwards & Wilson, 2004). Bell and
Kozlowski (2002, as cited in Miloslavic, Wildman, & Thayer, 2015) bring up another component
that can create a complexity of the team formation, namely that it depends on whether someone in
the team has multiple roles. If team members have multiple roles in their virtual teams, the
likelihood is that people in the team may experience confusion and conflicts between their roles.
Confusion about team member roles is related to the fact that weak and unclear expectations are
set on employees, which can lead to employees becoming uncertain about what is expected of
them (Katz & Kahn, 1978, as cited in Miloslavic et al., 2015). Another identified challenge is that
as a leader, one should not have an excessive need for control as responsibilities are distributed
and it is not possible to keep control of what all team members are doing all of the time (Eikenberry
& Turmel, 2018). Avolio and Kahai (2003) claim that the picture of virtual teams can be
complicated in terms of how the division of leadership occurs at various points in the life cycle of
the team. This depends on what goals the team must accomplish and deliver (Avolio & Kahai,
2003).
Since virtual teams lack the same face to face contact as co-located teams have, a traditional
hierarchical leadership structure is proposed to be disadvantaged by Hoch and Kozlowski (2014).
As a result of the minimized face to face contact and geographical spreading, in addition to virtual
teams in nature are having nonsynchronous (non-real time) types of communication, it makes it
more problematic for leaders to use behaviors of a traditional hierarchical leadership style such as
managing team dynamics and motivating team members, claim Avolio et al. (2000; Bell &
Kozlowski, 2002; Purvanova & Bono, 2009, as cited in Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014).
2.2.4 Challenge: Different Time Zones, Cultures and Languages
Different time zones, cultures and languages as well as different views of leaders, are identified as
challenges for virtual teams (DuFrene & Lehman, 2016). In a questionnaire conducted by Minton-
Eversole (2012), around 49 % said that time difference is a difficulty and 26 % pointed out
variances in cultural standards as a challenge. According to Eikenberry and Turmel (2018), cultural
norms, expectations and time zones complicates the leadership. Zander et al. (2013) state that
communication across different locations is considered as highly important and that it is one of the
major challenges. This, because there is a restricted amount of time that enables real-time
interaction when working across different time zones. Edwards and Wilson (2004) also mention
the restriction on real-time communication and how to define core working hours, as there always
will be nighttime somewhere and daytime at the same time somewhere else due to time differences.
Kraut and Streeter (1995, as cited in Espinosa, Carmel, & Wiley, 2004) agree, and further highlight
that the impact of working across different time zones, not only have an impact on the possibilities
to use real-time communication but also on the teams in such way that they cannot interact
continuously and informally, thus having an impact on the coordination of task activities.
9
Generally, according to Zander et al. (2013), the cultural background of team members impacts
what kind of leadership one prefers as well as how work should be organized. There are clear
differences concerning for example how to coach, give feedback and communicate. This is a
challenge when leading global virtual teams as one kind of leadership do not suit all, and because
a “leadership chameleon” is unsuccessful as it harms the team’s ability to create a common team
culture (Zander et al., 2013). How to motivate the team members is also stated to be dependent on
the cultural background and connected to the leadership preferences. Edwards and Wilson (2004)
further bring up the impact of the number of languages involved, claiming that the language and
cultural barriers may be magnified through communication via technological solutions. Thus, the
risk of misunderstandings and miscommunications increases. Similarly, Zander et al. (2013) claim
that cultural differences may be enlarged or silently downplayed as a result of digital
communication (even if the communication includes video conferencing), which may cause
misunderstandings. However, Edwards and Wilson (2004) mention that as the technology behind
video conferencing advances, these kinds of risks may be minimized.
A considerable problem is when the cultural differences cause problems due to assumptions that
are caused by something that is taken for granted by some people and is unrecognized by others
(Zander et al., 2013). As mentioned earlier, how trust is created can vary from one culture to
another. To create a mutual understanding is on the other hand recognized as more common
knowledge and shared cognition. According to Zander et al. (2013), navigating and negotiating
between different national, cultural, or functional viewpoints, have been claimed as one of the
largest challenges of cross-functional interaction. Moreover, communication tends to be unevenly
distributed in organizations with multiple national cultures. As Zander et al. (2013) describe it,
people tend to communicate more with groups that are similar to their own. Thus, knowledge is
not shared evenly. Face to face interaction is usually a good tool to avoid being hindered by these
challenges, virtual teams, therefore, need to find other ways for how to tackle the challenges.
Zander et al. (2013) define goal alignment as a prominent challenge as the team might have
different ambitions and goals that conflict. The reason behind that can be mistakenly shared
assumptions, but also as an effect of the local context. By that, Zander et al. (2013) mean that
different sites or individuals may prioritize goals that in the long run is beneficial for them but not
for the current project. Those miss-priorities can be culturally rooted, as a result of different
interpretations of what is written between the lines. Not having the goals aligned makes the
performance of the team ineffective (Zander et al., 2013).
Espinosa, Nan and Carmel (2007) made a study of 42 virtual teams with full overlap, 2/3 overlap,
1/3 overlap, or no overlap in time zones. Some results came out as they expected. For example,
when having no, or less overlap between the sites, the accuracy in the execution of the task
decreased, which was assumed to be an effect of not being able to communicate in real-time. That
further increases the risk of misunderstandings which may be unnoticed. A more surprising result
of the study according to Espinosa et al. (2007), is that the speed of the projects conducted followed
a U-curve, see Figure 2 below. As can be seen in the figure, full-time overlap gave a relatively
high working speed that was decreasing when the overlap was 2/3. With 1/3 overlap on the other
hand, the negative curve has turned around (having a little bit less impact). When there was no
overlap, the speed increased to an even higher level than when having full-time overlap. Espinosa
10
et al. (2007) discovered that the feeling of frustration among the team members due to the
collaboration across time zones not necessarily reflected the actual outcome of the performance.
For example, when having a small-time overlap, the experienced frustration was low or non-
existing, but it turned out to impact the working result negatively. Important to mention is that this
study states that the speed increase when having no time overlap as true when the tasks are
relatively simple, thus the team can easily interpret what to do and work uninterruptedly. Espinosa
et al. (2007) do not claim that this is the case with more complex assignments, but that the
switching between synchronous and nonsynchronous communication may create distractions due
to the mental adjustments needed by teams working with sites with some time overlap.
Figure 2: Time zone overlap’s impact on accuracy and speed
2.3 Categorization of Challenges and Synthesis
The challenges identified in the theory above are categorized into three areas: communication,
coordination and location to create a simpler overview and increase the understanding of the
challenges. Which area that each challenge belongs to and which sources that confirm that the
challenge exists (meaning the triangulation), can be reviewed in Table 1 below.
The area communication is about what type of communication that is required to make virtual
teams work, what tools that are required and how leaders of virtual teams can build trust as well
as cohesion. The area coordination focus on what kind of role structure that is beneficial for virtual
teams, how that can increase the performance and how team members should be distributed across
different sites. The area location focuses on solving issues related to the geographical aspect of
virtual teams, such as different time zones, cultures and languages.
11
Table 1: Synthetization of the literature review
Authors
Challenges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Area 1: Communication Building Trust
and Cohesion
Miloslavic,
Wildman,
& Thayer
(2015)
Edwards &
Wilson
(2004)
DuFrene
and
Lehman
(2016)
Eikenberry
& Turmel
(2018)
Zander,
Zettinig
and
Mäkelä
(2013)
Information
Communication
Technology
Tools
DuFrene
and
Lehman
(2016)
Edwards
and Wilson
(2004)
Malhotra,
Majchrzak,
& Rosen
(2007)
Eikenberry
& Turmel
(2018)
Zander,
Zettinig
and
Mäkelä
(2013)
Area 2: Coordination Role Structure
and Distribution
of Human
Resources
Miloslavic,
Wildman,
& Thayer
(2015)
Edwards
and Wilson
(2004)
Malhotra,
Majchrzak,
& Rosen
(2007)
Minton-
Eversole
(2012)
Jarvenpaa
& Leidner
(1999)
Area 3: Location Different Time
Zones, Culture
and Language
Miloslavic,
Wildman,
& Thayer
(2015)
Edwards
and Wilson
(2004)
Malhotra,
Majchrzak,
& Rosen
(2007)
Eikenberry
& Turmel
(2018)
Zander,
Zettinig
and
Mäkelä
(2013)
DuFrene
and
Lehman
(2016)
Edger
(2012)
2.3.1 Precise Research Questions
From the three identified areas (communication, coordination and location) the main question
outlined in the introduction can be broken down into three sub-questions, to clearly show how to
fulfill the purpose:
RQ1: What type of communication is essential for virtual teams to work effectively?
RQ2: How should virtual teams be coordinated and led to enable success?
RQ3: How is it possible to handle challenges in terms of location that affect the
performance of virtual teams?
These three research questions are explored further in the upcoming part of the theory chapter, as
well as later in the empirical findings, the analysis and the conclusions.
12
2.4 Addressing the Challenges
To create a deeper understanding of the areas and challenges defined in the previous section, a
further investigation on how to manage them to minimize the negative impact that they can
contribute to is presented below. Different researchers have come to different ways of addressing
the challenges with virtual teams, even though many challenges are similar. For example, some
researchers make a difference in time perspective, claiming that some things are more important
at an early stage and something else, when the team has been working together for some time,
while others do not. To create a holistic picture of how to handle the challenges, the time
perspective will be included within each area in all cases where previous studies have highlighted
it.
Followingly, how to address the challenges within the areas: communication, coordination and
location are presented.
2.4.1 Critical Area 1: Communication
In the communication area, challenges from Table 1 are further investigated and different ways of
addressing the challenges are presented. The headlines in this part are: Addressing building trust
and cohesion and Addressing information communication technology tools.
Addressing Building Trust and Cohesion
In the first phase of a newly formed virtual team, Zander et al. (2013) point out the importance of
the first impression. In this stage, leaders need to work with goal alignment through discussions
where the organizational goals are connected to the objectives of the project. In virtual teams
nothing is to be assumed but needs to be clarified to make sure that the team members have the
same interpretation. Avolio and Kahai (2003) further emphasize the importance of communicating
often within the team, especially at an early stage and to be aware that there might be
misinterpretations. According to Edwards and Wilson (2004), virtual teams should if possible meet
face to face at an early stage, as that contributes to the building of trust and cohesion. Miloslavcic
et al. (2015) also state that face to face meetings should be set up early to build strong relationships,
but also to reduce potential future conflicts. As a second option, that meeting can be conducted by
phone.
According to Zander et al. (2013), building relationships is important in the early phase of new
virtual teams as well to build trust and create cohesion, as that improves the ability to create mutual
understanding and knowledge sharing. The leader should encourage the team to share some of
their background information to further enhance the relationship building and to cover for the
informal conversations that otherwise occur (for example by the coffee machine) in co-located
teams. The amount of this kind of information needed may vary according to Zander et al. (2013),
and depends on if it is a collectivist-oriented society or not. In collectivist-oriented societies, that
kind of information is necessary, while in a highly task-oriented context, it is less important.
Leaders in virtual teams must act for the team to socialize with each other, as it is important because
it increases motivation, commitment and decreases goal conflicts.
13
Kelley (2001, as cited in Miloslavic et al., 2015), argues that if a virtual team is highly task
interdependent, the team must put more effort into building relationships. That to boost trust and
unity within the team, as well as create common opinions looking at culture, organizational- and
country boundaries. In virtual teams where team members easily can feel disconnected from the
others in the team, it is extra important to create interconnection with the purpose to take advantage
of benefits that a team brings (Miloslavic et al., 2015). If team members share goals and purpose,
it will ensure both collaboration and coordination. Thus, team members will develop
interdependence as a result of shared fate (Davis & Bryant, 2003). When interdependence
increases, Miloslavic et al. (2015) claim that it turns out to be more vital for the team to put extra
energy in creating key processes and developing conditions for trust and cohesion but also an
efficient communication with the purpose to guarantee best team performance. Since team
members in virtual teams are considerably dependent on each other to achieve their goals,
Miloslavic et al. (2015) state that it is crucial for them to develop strong bonds and to have effective
communication. To create and uphold trust by the use of communication technology, the leader
should according to Malhotra et al. (2007) direct the norms towards how information is
communicated and as the team progresses, the norms of communication should be adjusted. How
different team members are delivering progress should also be communicated as that increases the
feeling of common achievement to the project (Zander et al., 2013). It also, to some extent creates
a sense of “ownership”, which according to Zander et al. (2013), generates a feeling of contribution
and impact, thus it increases motivation and commitment.
According to Avolio and Kahai (2003), greater diversity in the virtual team can make it more
desirable for leaders to implement a sense of cohesion. That can be achieved by using ICT tools
and focus on team members’ similarities as well as their differences. However, to start with, virtual
leaders could highlight the group as a whole and minimize the focus on individual differences, this
by referring to the team as “us” and “we” in their communication. To be a successful leader of a
virtual team, one must build relationships as well as trust, perhaps more rapidly than when leading
teams face to face (Avolio & Kahai, 2003). Eikenberry and Turmel (2018) emphasize that leaders
of virtual teams should intentionally encourage the building of relationships with all team
members. If the team’s preferred leadership style is the one used, the motivation of the team
increases (Zander et al., 2013).
Addressing Information Communication Technology Tools
According to Miloslavic et al. (2015), most of all virtual teams primarily execute their work by
using ICT tools. Zander et al. (2013) state that face to face interactions by the coffee machine is
not obvious for everyone. Instead, the communication takes place through cyberspace
communication, meaning that it relies on technological solutions and that it has an impact on the
leaders and the team. When team members use technological tools that provide valuable
information such as facial expressions and social visual signals, the conversations are treated as
“less virtual” and thereby are closer to the communication that co-located teams have (Miloslavic
et al., 2015). Malhotra et al. (2007) state that for leaders to be efficient and to bring success for
virtual teams, they should manage and carry out meetings, observe the teams’ progress by using
technology, as well as create and uphold trust by using different technologies for communication.
14
Moreover, effective leaders seem to be extremely effective in terms of communication by offering
regular, detailed and direct communication with their employees (Kayworth & Leidner, 2002).
Malhotra et al. (2007) further state that leaders of virtual teams must be creative in their way of
establishing processes and structures so that they can detect things virtually that might be
unexpected.
To enable efficient communication and sharing of knowledge, Zander et al. (2013) point out that
ICT tools are important. These tools allow document sharing, shared databases, video
conferencing, discussion groups for bridging different time zones, real-time chats, e-mails, space
for socialization and nevertheless, means for decision making. Edwards and Wilson (2004) claim
that defining how meetings and communication should take place and through which tools, should
be established in virtual teams. Formal operating agreements are preferred as they according to
Edwards and Wilson (2004), improve the flow in the virtual team’s action and have benefits for
team building and development of trust. Similarly, Zander et al. (2013) state that to enable global
virtual teams to utilize their capabilities and have integrated communication, it is important that
the leader creates the means of communication. With efficient communication and knowledge
sharing, the decision making will be more effective as well as the alignment of goals. Zander et al.
(2013) state that the leader needs to facilitate processes as well as guide the team members in their
work. To do so, the leader needs to pay attention to the progress, create a shared context and
connect people by communicating continuously. These activities may occur naturally when
leading face to face, but in virtual teams that is something the leader needs to do actively by using
ICT tools. Moreover, paying attention to possible conflicts is important in the leadership role
(Zander et al., 2013). To control the teams’ progress by using technology, the leader should review
nonsynchronous and synchronous patterns of communication claim Malhotra et al. (2007).
Further, Malhotra et al. (2007) state that it is challenging for leaders to know whether a team
member is prepared for, or are mentally present in a virtual meeting. For example, virtual team
leaders must be able to recognize when silence from “electronics” signifies compliance rather than
distraction. According to Rico and Cohen (2005), performance in virtual teams depends on the
match between the choice of the communications process, and the nature of the given task.
Miloslavic et al. (2015) recommend that deeply interdependent virtual teams should apply
synchronous communication tools that grant amplified face to face communication to promote
teamwork behaviors and attitudes. For lower interdependent teams, less synchronized
communication tools may be tolerable. Eikenberry and Turmel (2018) express that the leader must
gather information in different ways to create a clearer picture of reality. This by not only using
different ICT tools but also by making sure to communicate with several persons, gathering their
input and knowledge.
Eikenberry and Turmel (2018) state that the usage of video-communication is important as humans
by nature rely on nonverbal cues such as facial expressions, and therefore crave that kind of
interaction. Edwards and Wilson (2004) emphasize the importance of choosing the right
technology for the purpose and also the importance that all team members have to feel comfortable
with the tools being used. Edwards and Wilson (2004) further state that the team members usually
have to learn how to use the technological solutions as time goes, but preferably everyone should
obtain that knowledge on forehand. This is in line with what Malhotra et al. (2007) claim, that
15
virtual team members need guidelines for how to use communication technology and norms that
define how frequently there is a need for checking the team members knowledge “storage”. There
should also be norms that describe for example what to post in such a way that there will not be
an overload of information, as well as how to comment in different documents and how a video or
voice conference should take place.
Edwards and Wilson (2004) present the importance of planning team actions to make sure that all
members are working towards the same goals (as virtual teams do not meet regularly). The action
plan should be formed in a way that enables success measurements, to make it easier for the team
to verify that they are working in the right direction. Edwards and Wilson (2004) also state the
importance of defining what ICT tools to use. To handle virtual meetings and work-cycles,
Malhotra et al. (2007) state that the leader should take up all ideas that disagree with one another
and resolve conflicts when the virtual meetings are ongoing. Also, at the beginning of virtual
meetings, the leader should use the time for building relationships within the virtual team, as well
as strive to give each team member recognition of their work. During the meetings, the leader
should also do check-ups to make sure that everyone in the meetings is engaged and express
themselves. At the end of meetings, the leader should make sure that the protocol as well as a plan
for future work, are saved in the repository. Furthermore, DuFrene and Lehman (2016) claim that
it is vital to promote trust, encourage discussions, human interaction and manage conflicts to be
able to lead virtual teams successfully. All these issues require exceptional leadership with
efficient planning and communication virtually (DuFrene & Lehman, 2016). According to
Malhotra et al. (2007), the leader should express progress distinctly by using measurements of
balanced scorecards in the team’s virtual workspace. To make sure that there are benefits for
individuals that are a part of a virtual team, the leader should create awareness around the virtual
members of the team (Malhotra et al., 2007).
2.4.2 Critical Area 2: Coordination
In the coordination area, the challenge from Table 1 is further investigated. Thus, this part consists
of: Addressing role structure and distribution of human resources.
Addressing Role Structure and Distribution of Human Resources
According to Pullan (2016), a command-and-control and domineering style of leadership, will in
most situations not work for this type of team formation. Pullan (2016) further highlights the
importance of autonomy among team members. This since virtual teams are conducting their work
remotely, thus no leader can always monitor what is done or not done, therefore, virtual team
members need to motivate themselves to work. Hoch and Kozlowski (2014) state that as the level
of virtuality increases, hierarchical leadership has a weak relation to team performance, whereas
structural support (such as support in information, communication and reward systems), is more
strongly related. Continuing, Hoch and Kozlowski (2014) state that it is useful to provide the
virtual team leaders with applicable support, direction and potentially training.
Regardless of the level of virtuality, shared leadership in the team has a positive relation with team
performance. More precisely, shared leadership in the team means that the leader’s responsibility
is collectively exercised so that individual team members are empowered (Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk
16
& Gibson, 2005, as cited in Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014). Consequently, a shared team leadership
style with structural support is recommended for the management of virtual teams claim Hoch and
Kozlowski (2014). According to Kayworth and Leidner (2002), highly efficient leaders of virtual
teams take on a mentoring role and show a high degree of empathy and understanding to other
members of the team. Also, effective leaders can manage to enforce authority, without seeming
inflexible or imperious. Moreover, effective leaders are talented at handing out responsibilities to
everyone in the virtual team (Kayworth & Leidner, 2002). Malhotra et al. (2007) state that leaders
of virtual teams must guarantee that unique knowledge of the team members is being fully utilized.
Zander et al. (2013) state that it is important that the leader at an early stage clearly defines what
the tasks are, who should do what, and what the expectations are since that increases the feeling
of bringing value to the teamwork, as well as further enhances commitment and knowledge
sharing. Miloslavic et al. (2015) also state that leaders of virtual teams need to focus on finding
ways to communicate the intended role structure by using virtual communication tools. This to
reduce uncertainty about roles as much as possible. Further, Zander et al. (2013) highlight the
importance of that the leader defines where areas of expertise and knowledge are within the virtual
teams and how that impacts the roles of the members.
DuFrene and Lehman (2016) claim that successful virtual teams are usually connected to
distributed leadership that relies on the team members to take on leader responsibility proactively
when necessary. Depending on situational limitations such as environmental predictability and the
requirement for interdependence, different role constructions are more or less appropriate
(Hollenbeck et al., 2002; Moon et al., 2004, as cited in Miloslavic et al., 2015). In an unstable,
unpredictable and more accidental environment, changes are constantly happening, and in these
types of situations, a divisional role structure (when dividing employees and work by output, or
divided by market or region (SHRM, 2015)) may be more appropriate as it promotes team
flexibility (Miloslavic et al., 2015). On the contrary, in a more predictable and stable environment,
where changes and random events rarely occur, a functional role structure (when dividing
employees and work by specialization (SHRM, 2015)) may be more suitable to use. This, because
it boosts efficiency by reducing redundancy and developing a high level of competence for each
of the members of the team. Looking at the interdependence level, a functional role structure
creates a high level of task interdependency for example (Hollenbeck et al., 2002; Moon et al.,
2004, as cited in Miloslavic et al., 2015). Further, in a functional role structure, the team members
can switch to a divisional role structure if needed, but this is not possible the other way around
(Hollenbeck et al., 2002; Moon et al., 2004, as cited in Miloslavic et al., 2015). Meaning, a team
that practices a divisional role structure is not able to change to a functional role structure
successfully, even when the environment demands that change.
A shared team leadership style can bring benefits to a virtual team since it will support team
members to build a stronger bond with each other and make it easier to understand each team
members’ strengths and weaknesses, as well as responsibilities. Shared team leadership can also
enable each team member to feel involved in the team’s overall success (Pearce & Conger, 2003,
as cited in Miloslavic et al., 2015). Heckman, Crowston and Misiolek (2007, as cited in Miloslavic
et al., 2015) propose that for virtual teams to be effective, they should practice a combination of
shared team leadership balanced with a heavily centralized leadership style. Consequently, it is
17
suggested that a virtual team can create benefits by allocating routines and daily leadership tasks
between team members whilst assign a designated leader that is responsible for setting up activities
(Miloslavic et al., 2015).
The appropriate number of members for newly formed virtual teams is according to Edwards and
Wilson (2004) less than eight (due to the importance that every member gets their voice heard).
However, in general, they state that virtual teams should consist of a maximum of 20 people.
Regarding the number of organizations included in the team, the recommendation is to only
involve one organization in a newly formed virtual team. The reason is that with one organization
the team members should have been exposed to the same kind of ICT tools, methodologies of
working and have a common organizational culture. Thus, the start-up phase is likely to meet fewer
obstacles and the virtual communication can begin earlier as well as the sense of working towards
a common goal. When working with experienced virtual teams the number of organizations should
be around three (including customers, suppliers and consultants). The reason is to assure that the
team has the best abilities to respond to challenges as a result of a higher level of diversity and
more resources (Edwards & Wilson, 2004).
When it comes to improving the performance of virtual teams, Hoch and Kozlowski (2014) claim
that it is important to recognize the degree to which the impact of hierarchical leadership is or is
not reduced, as the virtual level of the team increases. Further, they claim that the impact of
hierarchical leadership on team performance is weakened as teams become more virtual by nature.
DuFrene and Lehman (2016) also state the importance of the leader including all team members
to leverage team talent, with a focus on their competencies. The leader should also provide clear
goals and other sufficient information. According to Hoch and Kozlowski (2014), it is necessary
to compensate the leader behaviors that are reduced as a result of distance, as well as differences
in culture. Besides, it is claimed that virtual team leaders need more time as well as resources
compared to leaders that are leading teams face to face. According to Kozlowski, Gully, Nason
and Smith (1999, as cited in Miloslavic et al., 2015), studies have concluded that uncertainty and
conflicts can be reduced by clearly specifying each team member’s role and responsibility in the
team.
2.4.3 Critical Area 3: Location
In the location area, the challenges from Table 1 are further investigated and different ways of
addressing the challenges are presented. The headline in this section is: Addressing different time
zones, culture and language.
Addressing Different Time Zones, Culture and Language
Referring to Gibson, Maznevski and Kirkman (2009, as cited in Miloslavic et al. 2015) team
members in virtual teams often do have different qualities and cultural backgrounds. Culture can
be characterized as the beliefs people have about relationships with one another, but also as the
environment that is common among an attributable group of people such as a nation, an
organization and a team. It is also observed in the values, beliefs, and norms for social behavior.
Malhotra et al. (2007) conclude that a leader should guarantee that cultural diversity among teams
is accepted and valued to bring success to a virtual team. When deciding how virtual teams should
18
be structured, leaders should according to Miloslavic et al. (2015) consider culture as an important
factor to the degree that it is possible to make sure that both norms and the structure of teams are
a good match with cultural norms and values. It is considered particularly important with cultural
values in team settings since it has meaning for the construction of teamwork attitudes, such as
trust, consistency and cognition (in the form of mental models and behavior such as information
exchange) (Shuffler, DiazGranados, & Salas, 2011, as cited in Miloslavic et al., 2015). Malhotra
et al. (2007) state that, leaders should make sure that diversity within the teams is not only
understood but also valued and leveraged. Further, the leader should permit diverse opinions to be
spoken by using nonsynchronous electronic means. Lee-Kelley and Sankey (2008) also enhance
to raise cultural awareness and empathy by choosing the team members carefully and preferably
include at least one member that has previous experience of working in virtual teams. That or those
team members, can help the other virtual team members to overcome obstacles due to for example
language barriers. As mentioned earlier by Avolio and Kahai (2003), greater diversity among the
team may make it more desirable for leaders to implement a sense of cohesion.
According to Espinosa et al. (2007), managers must evaluate carefully when deciding how to
distribute work between sites that are geographically spread due to the impacts on accuracy and
speed. Depending on what the goal is, different approaches are more suitable as the impacts on
accuracy and speed are not following the same line. To compensate for the coordination issues that
time separation involves, mechanistic coordination (for example the use of no-communication
means to in a programmed way coordinate activity, establish routines and procedures to simplify
the team’s work) is recommended as that effectively can organize the team tasks (Espinosa et al.,
2007). Carmel (2006) conducted a study that included interviews with a global IT-company that
is working in virtual teams that collaborate across time zones. During the interviews, two different
process elements were stated as especially important to overcome the obstacles that working across
different time zones include, those are formal weekly client meetings and status reporting. The
weekly meetings with clients are conducted in real-time and the persons who cannot participate
face to face should be present through an audio conference. The meetings are stated to mainly
consist of discussions concerning obstacles and challenges that are faced, as well as reports on
how the project is moving forward. The reporting is conducted through standard templates and
reports are delivered to the distant clients of the company and project members that are distributed
across the globe (Carmel, 2006). According to Carmel (2006), another way to overcome the
challenge of collaborating between different time zones is to design the project plans so that they
can withstand some time delay, similar to how evaluation and reporting of identified risks occur.
Edwards and Wilson (2004) state that a newly established virtual team should not have sites that
differ more than two hours due to different time zones. A more mature virtual team on the other
hand may use a wide range of communication technologies enabling them to be efficient 24 hours
a day, due to having the sites in different time zones. Edwards and Wilson (2004) emphasize that
all teams, no matter if they are virtual or not, must have an operational language. This, so that
focus is put on what is communicated and not on understanding what is being said. Teams that
operate around the world have few moments when the entire team can communicate through video
calls or similar methods unless some team members work during nonprime work hours. In
situations like this, it is according to Miloslavic et al. (2015) valuable for the team coherence to
19
“share the load” by rotating the meeting agenda in such a way that it is not always the same person
or people who are forced to either work late or get to work early. Similarly, Malhotra et al. (2007)
claim that the leader should provide an equal level of “sacrifice” among team members in the
geographically dispersed team.
20
3 Methodology This chapter exists for the reason to outline the methodologies that were used to conduct the master
thesis project, how the methodologies were used, as well as why they were chosen, see Figure 3
below for an illustration of how the work was carried out. This part also defines which type of
research that was conducted, why it was conducted as well as there is an explanation of how
ethical principles were implemented during the project. At the end of this section, the
methodological choices are discussed concerning what could have been done differently regarding
the research design, the data analysis as well as how the criteria of trustworthiness and
authentication are met.
Figure 3: Structure of the methodology section
3.1 Research Design
Gupta and Awasthy (2015) claim that the purpose of a qualitative study is to either explore or get
a conceptual clarity of a subject. Further, Gupta and Awasthy (2015) mean that a qualitative study
provides effective findings in identifying intangible factors such as social norms. It also offers
details about the settled experience of humans who can have conflicting opinions, beliefs,
behaviors, relationships and emotions. This is considered valuable for this study, as it is the
leader’s experiences, behaviors and beliefs connected to virtual teams, that are considered
interesting to investigate. This to enable recommendations for more effective coordination and
future work with virtual teams. This goes in line with the purpose of this study since there is a lack
of well-established theories within the subject. Partly because the prerequisites are constantly
changing as the communication technology is developed and improved. Thus, this study was
conducted in an explorative way. Gupta and Awasthy (2015) mean that an explorative approach
answer how, what, and why questions to gain a deeper and more varied understanding of the
investigated phenomenon which is valuable in this study to get a holistic picture of the leadership.
This was accomplished by first making a broader and exploring research to find out what
challenges were mentioned in several studies. The most commonly mentioned challenges were
later categorized and ways of addressing them were explored.
Research Design
• Qualitative study
• Explorative approach
Literature Review & Empirical Study
• Literature review
• Study of Ericsson
• Ethical principals
• Data analysis
Methodological Discussion
• Research design
• Data analysis
• Trustworthiness and authentication
21
3.2 Literature Review and Empirical Study
The literature review and the empirical study of Ericsson were carried out in a more or less parallel
process (see Figure 4 below). In the literature review, input was collected from various scholarly
studies and books. The findings were examined, summarized and later analyzed. The process of
collecting empirical data by studying Ericsson was initiated at the same time as the literature
review. The initial part in the empirical study was achieved through meetings with the supervisors
Sara Karlsson and Pierre Rohdin, line managers for one of the hardware development departments
in Kista, mainly to find out what might be useful for Ericsson to investigate. After the initial
meetings, the focus was almost exclusively on the literature review. When the literature review
was finished, the collection of empirical data continued by conducting semi-structured interviews
with leaders at different leadership levels and sites within the investigated department at Ericsson.
The ambition has been that not only will Ericsson be able to use the results, but that other
companies in similar industries with similar sets of teams can gain a greater understanding of areas
that affect the effectiveness of their virtual teams.
Figure 4: How input was collected and where the results can be found
3.2.1 Literature Review
The purpose of the literature study was to collect theory to be able to distinguish the challenges
that virtual teams are facing based on the conditions for virtual teams in general. This was
accomplished by first making a broader and exploring research to find out what challenges were
mentioned in a few studies as well as what was mentioned in several. To document how many
researchers that mentioned each challenge, a triangulation was used, which was continuously
updated. When there was a clear pattern in what challenges were the ones mentioned the most in
the literature, a categorization, as well as the final version of the triangulation was set (see Table
1, presented in section 2.3 Categorization of Challenges and Synthesis). Subsequently, it was
identified how those challenges can be addressed according to existing studies, focusing on the
leader’s perspective.
The literature review began with gathering information by using Linköping University’s online
library with access to several different databases. To find relevant data on challenges, the following
keywords were used: Multi-site Leadership, Multi-site + Project Management, Multi-Site +
Leadership, Remote Leadership, Remote Team + Project Management, Virtual Teams, Leading
Virtual Teams, Virtual Teams + Project Management, Distributed Teams, Distributed Teams +
Project Management and E-Leadership. Besides, guidance from the supervisor at the university
Literature
Review
Theoretical Framework
Ericsson
Study
Empirical Data
• Meetings with
supervisors
• Semi-structured
interviews
• E-mail conversations
• Challenges
• Triangulation
• How to address
the challenges
22
was received by the means of important advice on good literature and keywords to use. This was
a vital support for the study since sources could be confirmed as more or less reliable by the
supervisor. Moreover, new ideas were created after discussing everything from problems in the
research to quality in the result.
Triangulation
To increase the validity of the study, a triangulation was made. A triangulation is according to
Ahrne and Svensson (2015) done by combining different (not necessarily three as in
“triangulation”) methods, types of data or, theoretical perspectives. Thus, one can arrive at a more
“correct” objective or “true” description than if for example, only using one theoretical
perspective. In other words, the aim was to end up with the same or similar results by using
different methods, data, theories and studies, thus the study’s credibility thereby increases (Ahrne
& Svensson, 2015). Consequently, as a result of using triangulation, the credibility of the identified
challenges that affect the performance of virtual teams increased. The triangulation was developed
by first identifying challenges broadly by going through previous research. Then, authors were
added to the table if they addressed the same challenge. The challenges that were most frequently
addressed in the literature can be found in Table 1 in section 2.3 Categorization of Challenges and
Synthesis. After the challenges that virtual teams must address to be effective were clarified, they
were categorized into three areas: communication, coordination and location. This was done to
simplify the understanding of the challenges the leaders should address, and to make it easier to
create questions for the later conducted interviews. Within these three areas, three research
questions emerged that were later used in the study of Ericsson.
3.2.2 Study of Ericsson
Information and input from Ericsson were collected from regular status meetings with the
supervisors of the project and interviews were conducted with leaders at different positions and
different levels.
Meetings with Supervisors at Ericsson
The initial meetings with the supervisors at Ericsson were conducted to provide an initial insight
of the problems that revolve around virtual teams in general and the problems that leaders at
Ericsson are experiencing with their virtual teams. The insights from the initial meetings together
with the literature study that was carried out in parallel, created validated pinpoints to investigate
further, to underline challenges with virtual teams. Follow-up meetings were conducted for the
reason to discuss new findings in the literature, in order to compare this with Ericsson’s situations
and to discuss eventual changes that were made. During all meetings, notes were taken and marked
with dates to ensure that what was discussed, and how things were developed, was not forgotten.
The supervisors at Ericsson were an important resource because they made it possible to share
insights and ensure that the needs of Ericsson were truly met.
23
Semi-Structured Interviews
According to Gillham (2008), it can be argued that the semi-structured interview is the most
important type of research interview because it contains flexibility that is balanced by structure,
and consequently provides good quality data. Therefore, semi-structured interviews were suitable
for this study since it was important that flexibility could be maintained to avoid directing the
questions too much towards the challenges that were identified from previous studies. Thus, to
receive information about challenges from the leader’s experience rather than steering the direction
of the answers completely, a semi-structured interview was found suitable.
To be able to classify an interview as a semi-structured one, it should according to Bryman and
Bell (2011) be structured in such a way that the interviewer has a questionnaire with questions on
fairly precise topics to work with, allowing the interviewee to answer broadly. The interviewer
does not have to follow the planned structure for the questions and the interviewer may include
additional questions as the interviewer can pick up things being said by the interviewee during the
interview. However, as a rule, all main questions should be asked to all interviewees. What to bear
in mind according to Bryman and Bell (2011) is that the questions in the questionnaire should
cover what the interviewer needs, but at the same time make it possible to get the perspective of
the interviewee. The process in creating the interview questionnaire for this study can be seen in
Figure 5 below, it was inspired by the process that can be found in Bryman and Bell (2011).
Figure 5: Process of making the interview questionnaire
From the research area and the purpose of the study, the research questions emerged, and from
these, interview areas were created to divide the interview questionnaire into several parts. The
different parts were: background questions, initial questions, coordination-related questions,
communication-related questions, location-related questions and a closing part. The background
Research area Research questions Interview areas
Creating first interview
questionnaire
Review/revise interview
questionnaire
Conduct first interviews
Identify issues with questionnaire
Improve interview questionnaire +
send out additional questions
Final interview questionnaire
24
part aimed to create a clearer picture of the person being interviewed, therefore the background
questions concerned how long the person had been a leader, and what kind of leadership position
the leader has. The coordination-, communication- and location-related questions were as argued
before, developed to gain information about the areas identified in the literature review. The
closing part was about allowing the leaders to describe their vision of an ideal virtual leadership,
how he/she want to improve his/her leadership skills and what Ericsson can contribute with to
make that happen. Within these parts, interview questions were created, for the full questionnaire,
see Appendix 2: Interview Questionnaire.
Bryman and Bell’s (2011) guidelines were in mind when creating the interview questions. The
focus was put on creating a good order for the different parts so that it became a natural flow
throughout the interview. The order of the questions did not always follow that specific order
though since it was adapted according to the answers from the leaders, but it was used as a ground
structure. The questions were formulated in such a way that they helped to answer the research
questions, without being too specific, this to open up for findings outside of the given areas as
well. However, by creating questions based on the three areas, it was possible to make sure to
cover a large area of the subject virtual teams based on the literature review. A decision was made
to investigate whether the leaders’ experience and opinions about virtual teams correlated with the
findings from the literature review concerning the challenges, and how they should be addressed,
or if the interviews would generate new challenges to look deeper into.
After making an initial draft of the interview questions, these were revised and improved. Then
the first interviews were made. The interviews were analyzed continuously and after the third
interview, a need to add three questions to the questionnaire was identified; this, to make sure to
cover the three areas that the interviews intended to investigate. The questions that were added to
the questionnaire are the following:
1. What are the benefits of using virtual teams?
2. Do you think that the distribution of team members matter? Like for example, if there is
only one person on one site and more on others?
3. Is there anything you would like to improve in your own virtual leadership?
When the interview questionnaire was improved, an e-mail with the complementary questions was
sent out to the initially interviewed leaders who had not responded to these during their interviews.
The questionnaire was then completed and used in the following interviews.
The interviewed leaders at Ericsson are leaders who conduct virtual leadership within program-,
project-, and line manager level within the hardware development department at Ericsson.
Through e-mail conversations with Karlsson and Rohdin (2020), it was explained that a line
manager has personnel responsibility for all team members of three to six teams and the tasks
include recruiting, personal career development and team development. A program consists of 8
to 15 teams which are led by program managers and the team’s deliveries are closely related or
are part of a specific function delivered by that program. A program manager’s tasks include
managing requests from the projects and make sure that the teams do the right thing at the right
time and works with prioritization. A project gets its deliveries from the programs that deliver
25
functionalities that are a part of a project. Karlsson and Rohdin (2020) explain that the projects at
Ericsson have a beginning and an end, unlike the programs. Each project has one project manager.
A project manager’s tasks include organizing, so that all programs have the correct requirements
from the project, coordinate between internal and external deliveries, time management and
communication towards external parties.
The interviewed leaders are from the sites in Kista and Lund in Sweden, in addition to Austin in
the US. This does not indicate that those three chosen sites only collaborate with each other, they
cooperate with many other sites as well, for example, sites in India, Germany, Rumania, and
England. In total twelve leaders were interviewed and to the greatest extent possible, an attempt
was made to interview the same number of leaders from each of the leadership positions. The
interviewees’ time as leaders vary from 7 months to 24 years, thus a great spread. All except for
three leaders have both been a part of and led or are currently leading virtual teams. The remaining
three leaders have only led virtual teams. Moreover, all leaders have between two and five sites,
which they cooperate virtually with to some extent, see Table 2 below for more detailed
information.
Table 2: Information about each leader’s experience
Interviewees Leader time Site (location) Leadership level Led and/or
been part of a
virtual team?
Maximum
sites
involved
Leader 1 7 months Kista, Sweden Line Manager Both 3 sites
Leader 2 9 years Kista, Sweden Line Manager Only led 5 sites
Leader 3 24 years Kista, Sweden Line Manager Both 3 sites
Leader 4 8 years Kista, Sweden Program Manager Both 4 sites
Leader 5 10 years Kista, Sweden Program Manager Only led 4 sites
Leader 6 5 years Kista, Sweden Program Manager Both 4 sites
Leader 7 11 years Kista, Sweden Project Manager Both 5 sites
Leader 8 5-7 years Kista, Sweden Project Manager Both 4 sites
Leader 9 18-19 months Lund, Sweden Line Manager Both 3 sites
Leader 10 14-15 years Lund, Sweden Project Manager Both 2 sites
Leader 11 22 months Austin, USA Project Manager Only led 3 sites
Leader 12 20 months Austin, USA Line Manager Both 3 sites
Looking at how the leaders at Ericsson were selected for this study, a non-probability sampling as
described by Ghauri, Grønhaug and Strange (2020) was chosen. This type of sample is considered
simple and easy to use, as well as it provides valuable insights. More specifically, what Ghauri et
al. (2020) refer to as a “judgment” (purposive) sampling, (meaning that respondents were actively
selected to obtain a sample based on the researcher’s judgment), that can be seen as representative
of the “population”, meaning leaders within the hardware development department at Ericsson.
Consequently, people from equally different leadership groups and sites were actively selected
through a list provided by the supervisors at Ericsson.
A request for participation was sent out via e-mail to approximately the same number of leaders
from each leadership group. It was decided not to e-mail everyone on the list at once since there
was uncertainty about how many of the leaders that were interested in participating. Therefore, it
26
was considered better to send out an inquiry in different rounds and if no response was received,
or if the leader for some reason could not participate, new requests were sent out. In the first round,
four requests for participation were sent to the leadership positions: program-, project- and line
manager. Another round of requests was sent out thereafter because some leaders did not have
time to participate. Everyone who received an e-mail was positive and excited about the master
thesis project, no one declined to participate because they did not want to, but because they did not
have time within the timespan that the interviews were conducted. It was considered more
important to interview the same number of leaders from each leadership group than to try to get
the same number of leaders from each site. This decision was made based on the assumption that
the position as line-, program- or project-manager in this study was considered being equal on all
sites, even though their responsibilities, experiences and duties may differ. Besides, there are more
leaders from each leadership level positioned in Kista than it is in Austin and Lund since Kista is
the main site. Hence more requests of participation were sent to leaders at the site in Kista than to
leaders located in Lund or Austin. In total, three of the participating leaders were women out of
twelve and the reason for that is because there are currently fewer women that have these kinds of
positions within the studied hardware department.
The interviews were conducted on-site at Ericsson’s office in Kista, or by the use of ICT tools
(Microsoft Skype or Microsoft Teams). The intention was to conduct all interviews possible face
to face (including the interviews with leaders at other sites than Kista). This as an attempt to create
an environment where the leader feels safe to share a lot of personal experiences. Gillham (2008)
means that in an interpersonal situation where trust has been built up, disclosing things about
oneself can be made possible. In this case, it was considered easier to build a relationship between
interviewers and interviewees if both were physically in the same room. However, due to the
situation of the covid-19 pandemic, only two of the twelve interviews were conducted face to face,
eight by using a video and voice conversation and two where the leaders used voice calls only and
the interviewers used both voice and video. Some interviews were held in Swedish, while others
were held in English, depending on what the leader preferred.
When conducting the interviews, three people always attended. Two that were responsible for the
interview and one that was interviewed. However, of those who held the interviews, one person
asked the majority of the questions to the leader and the other focused on writing down things that
could not be perceived in the recorded sound, such as facial expressions, body language, and silent
reactions. The interviews were also conducted this way to avoid creating confusion concerning
who would ask questions. However, the interviewer that mostly took notes could interfere with
questions if the other interviewer missed asking a question, or if one wanted to clarify something
that was said. All interviews took between 35 minutes to just over an hour. There were no patterns
regarding whether the face to face interviews lasted longer than the virtual ones, or vice versa.
Another factor that should be taken into account according to Bryman and Bell (2011), is to
conclude and sum up the interview in a way that ensures that the interviewee gets the chance to
say all that he/she wants regarding the topic. Also, so that he/she is given the chance to point out
problems that may have been forgotten during the interview. The final moment also provides the
opportunity to ask one last “sum-up-everything question”, mean Bryman and Bell (2011). In this
27
study, this was applied so that the leader at the end got the chance to speak up if something might
have been misunderstood during the interview and/or if there was something that he/she wanted
to add, which was not brought up during the interview.
Following Bryman and Bell’s (2011) recommendation, a recording feature on a mobile phone was
used during all interviews. This because, according to Bryman and Bell (2011) it is important for
the data analysis and to retain the personal feeling in the responses of the interviewees. When each
interview was completed in this study, they were transcribed directly or the day after. That
timespan is recommended by Gillham (2008) as that is stated to easier the interpretation of the
recorded interview.
3.2.3 Ethical Principles
One way to deal with ethical principles according to Ahrne and Svensson (2015), is to follow the
principle of informed consent. This means that the persons being interviewed, should be informed
about what the meaning of the study is and based on the given information, they have the right to
decide for themselves whether they want to participate in the study or not. Following Ahrne and
Svensson’s (2015) recommendations, a request was carefully written in an e-mail where the master
thesis project was clearly explained before the interviews were conducted. The e-mail explained
what the result will be used for and that the leader is given access to the report if desired when the
study is completed, for the e-mail see Appendix 1: Information about Interview Study. This
information was read by each leader before conducting the interview.
A second principle given by Bryman and Bell (2017), is related to confidentiality. The principle
state that the empirical data that is acquired from the interviews for research purposes about
separate individuals must be preserved and accounted for in such a way, that what individuals state
cannot be identified. To meet this second ethical requirement, another document explaining the
leader’s anonymity and freedom to terminate the interview at any time was also created. This to
make the leaders aware of their rights and make them feel comfortable with their participation and
freedom to cancel the interview if desired, see
Appendix 3: Consent to Participate in the Interview Study for the document. This was then signed
by both the leader and the interviewers. However, this could only be done with the leaders that
were interviewed face to face, in the other cases the information was provided and agreed upon
verbally before the recording and the actual interview began.
3.2.4 Data Analysis
The data analysis, meaning the information received through the interviews, was inspired by the
ten-step process that Gillham (2008) presents. The first four steps were followed to the letter, the
later steps were mostly used as guidelines (as some parts of the process were considered to focus
too much on smaller details). The four first steps are as follows:
1. Make sure that the transcriptions are written in a way that makes them easy to work with
(for example follow the recommended guidelines with capital letters, italics and bold
letters). Use at least double spacings and make sure to use indications on who the
interviewee is so that there is no doubt concerning who said what.
28
2. Work through the transcriptions one at the time and mark the important parts (and the parts
that could be important, but not necessarily is).
3. Do not read transcriptions without breaks, especially longer ones as that decreases the focus
and attention. A reference is to never exceed the amount of two or three transcriptions a
day.
4. After reading and making marks in all transcriptions, go through them again a lot faster.
Make sure to un-mark parts that are not considered important and scan if there is something
that has been excluded that should be in the analysis.
Afterward, the empirical data, which was selected for further analysis, was categorized and
structured based on which question it belonged to. Then, the data was compiled in categories that
emerged from the different answers so a pattern on how many leaders that brought up the same
thing, was visualized, as well as how many leaders that claimed the opposite, or something else.
This kind of compilation and structuring after questions and the content from the given answers
are included in the later steps of the process of Gillham (2008). Thereafter, quotes that were
considered descriptive were sorted out so that some firsthand information could be included in the
report. Some interviews were conducted in Swedish, those citations were translated into English,
thus all included citations are not in their original language. Finally, the empirical findings were
structured under the areas that were identified earlier in the study, meaning communication,
coordination and location. However, some of the findings were not structured under the previously
identified challenges and how they can be addressed, this because new topics emerged during the
interviews. As mentioned earlier, one of the reasons why semi-structured interviews were chosen
was to open up for other challenges than the ones that were identified in theory. Subsequently,
some new headlines were added in the empirical findings. The findings that did not fit under the
identified areas are presented in the discussion as they contribute to widening the perspective of
the study.
3.3 Methodological Discussion
In this section, the methodology choices are discussed concerning how the process may have
impacted the results as well as what could have been done differently. The section is divided into:
Research design, Data analysis and Trustworthiness and authentication.
3.3.1 Research Design
What can be discussed and questioned about this study is whether a qualitative study was the best
approach for answering the research questions and meeting the objectives. The alternative, to do a
quantitative study would have obtained other valuable input to the study and the result would have
had higher generalizability. In this case, however, deeper experiences were valued more, which
was why a qualitative study was preferable. More specifically, what is positive with a qualitative
study in this case, is that if a leader has an opinion that stands out a lot from other leaders’ opinions,
this does not affect the final result negatively as it would in a quantitative study were the answers
are merged. Instead, it becomes an interesting topic that creates contrast in the analysis and
contributes to a wider understanding of the topic.
29
Literature Review
The literature review began with a broad search and early on, questions were raised around how
to sort out the valuable theory and how to identify and specify the areas to work further with. What
can be discussed here, is whether the information that was chosen was suitable theory for the
research area. Are there alternative approaches to gather this type of theory, and would it have
been possible to make the literature review more structured and efficient? In any case, the three
identified areas: communication, coordination and location emerged naturally from the initial
theory and are considered strengthened and valid by using triangulation. For this study, a more
extended triangulation was initially made with all the identified challenges surroundings virtual
teams that could be identified in the literature. Subsequently, factors that were not reinforced by
several authors were removed and resulted in the present triangulation. Thus, the triangulation is
considered to be valid, consequently strengthening the theoretical framework that the literature
review resulted in.
Study of Ericsson
Although the meetings with the supervisors at Ericsson provided valuable insights, guidance and
perspectives on things, it can be further discussed whether this was enough to make major
decisions about the development of the project. What can also be debated here is the number of
meetings that were conducted, if it would have been better to have more meetings with the
supervisors, and if it would be valuable for the thesis to conduct meetings with other people at
Ericsson as well to get a wider perspective on the research area. However, in the end, given the
time frame available for the project, it is considered a reasonable number of meetings, and that the
information the meetings provided valuable information and insights.
Looking at the interviews, some things could perhaps be done differently. First, if one looks at
how the leaders were selected, they were in this case, selected though a non-probability sampling
and chosen from a list given by the supervisors. This could have been accomplished in a more
organized way, to make sure that the research had a representative sample. For example, one could
have used a tool that randomly selected leaders from a list and thus got a cluster sampling, which
could have had the strength of not being selected from a more subjective point of view. However,
in this study, it was considered reliable to actively select leaders in such a way to ensure that the
study got a widespread between different leadership positions and sites.
Another thing to discuss is the number of leaders that participated in the interviews, with the
knowledge that Ericsson is a large company with many leaders, twelve people can be questioned
as too few to represent a credible picture for the whole population of leaders at Ericsson. However,
this is a qualitative study, so it is considered interesting to be able to share more personal insights
from the leaders and given the time frame available, twelve people are considered being enough
to be able to show how different leaders are working with their virtual teams at Ericsson within
the specific hardware development department that was studied. However, to state that this is how
it looks generally at Ericsson is not possible through this number of interviews.
Due to the prevailing situation of covid-19 pandemic, it can also be debated whether the results
were affected, as all interviews except the first two, were forced to be conducted virtually.
However, the virtual interviews were not perceived to be less useful than the interviews conducted
face to face, based on the quality of the answers and the direct feedback received from the leaders.
Since there was no clear difference regarding the time it took to conduct the interviews, there is no
30
indication that the face to face interviews would have provided more information than those
conducted remotely. Therefore, the virtual interviews are not considered inferior to those held face
to face.
If one looks at the questions themselves, how they were created, and how they were asked to each
respondent, that is also something that can be discussed. The questions were conducted with great
accuracy, but they were not tested in a pilot study. Instead, the first leaders participating in the
interviews became test persons. The final questionnaire might have looked different if it had been
reviewed by someone initially, perhaps the questions would have been clearer in their message.
However, as some changes were made and the questions that were not asked on the first interviews
were sent by e-mail instead, it is possible that a pilot test would have been beneficial. Perhaps the
answers received through e-mail would have been more detailed in a personal interview. However,
the answers are considered informative enough to conclude that not conducting a pilot study did
not harm the study. The fact that some interviews were held in Swedish, while others were held in
English may have impacted the result but to a very small extent. This, because Swedish is the
interviewers’ first language and the majority of those interviewed in Swedish also have it as their
first language, creating good conditions for communication. The interviews conducted in English
were not perceived to involve any direct language barriers, as all the leaders were proficient in
English, and in some cases, it was also the first language of the leaders. Thus, there was no
perceived difference between the quality of communication in the interviews conducted in English
compared to Swedish.
Although the questions to the greatest extent possible were asked in the same way and the same
order, some adjustments during the respective interview were made depending on the leader’s
understanding of the question or whether the leader was stuck and needed clarification. Besides,
customized follow-up questions were asked depending on whether the leader answered unclearly,
and the interviewer felt a need for clarification or wanted further information about the leader’s
answer. However, this approach is considered necessary in qualitative interviews, and it is rather
considered not to affect the leader too much if the interviewer can stay objective. To stay objective
and not influence the leaders with their own opinions is something that has been in mind during
all interviews. Therefore, the opinions of the interviewers are not considered to have affected the
result of the study.
Only 25 % of the leaders that were interviewed were women, which can be discussed since the
outcome might have looked different if more women would have participated. However, it can be
debated whether the gender of a leader should be significant for changing the outcome, or whether
it is rather the personality of the leaders. Anyhow, it would have been interesting to have a more
even gender distribution, but for this study, the number of women participating is considered to
reflect the distribution of women holding these types of leadership positions at the studied
department at Ericsson today, and it is therefore considered as a reasonable number to have in this
study.
31
3.3.2 Data Analysis
What can be discussed about the data analysis process, is if the result would have looked different
if all ten steps explained by Gillham (2008) were followed by the letter, instead of just four of
them. In addition, the structuring of the questions perhaps could have been done in other ways.
For example, it could have been done by organizing the results according to the different leadership
positions, instead of organizing it after the different questions. However, it was for this study
considered more interesting to identify what a greater number of leaders answered to various
questions in such a way that one could recognize patterns in general instead of looking at
differences and similarities between the different leadership positions. Therefore, it is not
considered to be a better idea to split the questions after the leadership groups, also because the
number at each level would have been too low. It is already at the number of 12 leaders not possible
to identify patterns that can be generalized, thus, an even lower number, would make it even more
difficult to distinguish. For that kind of conclusion, quantitative research methods are required.
All empirical data from the interviews were not included in this report. Findings that were of value
to answer the research questions or findings that widening the perspectives of the study as well as
information of value for Ericsson, were included. This, for the reason to enable substantiated
conclusions and recommendations for leadership in a virtual environment at Ericsson, that was
reinforced by theory. Additional empirical findings could have confused the reader or been
questioned since it would then not be reinforced by theory and not contribute to answering the
research questions.
3.3.3 Trustworthiness and Authentication
Bryman and Bell’s (2011) evaluation criteria seem appropriate for research that is conducted
qualitatively, consequently for this study. The criteria are based upon the concepts of
trustworthiness and authentication.
The concept of trustworthiness can according to Guba (1985, as cited in Bryman and Bell, 2011),
be split into four concepts: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. With
credibility, one is referring to internal validity, how reasonable the conclusions are. Bryman and
Bell (2011) mean that a researcher must assure the readers that the findings, as well as the
conclusions, are compelling in addition to that they are logical. The theoretical framework is as
mentioned based on a triangulation, meaning that several previous studies have identified the same
things, and those were to a large extent confirmed in this study. This, even though the questions
were not formulated in a way that led the leader to answer in a certain way, which indicates that
the conclusions are credible since they are the result of an analysis that connected the theoretical
framework with the empirical data. All leaders that were interviewed are experienced in leading
virtual teams; their hands-on experience should therefore be valid to use for the analysis.
Transferability is about external validity, meaning if the discovery applies to other studies
(Bryman & Bell, 2011). This topic is considered to be of great relevance, not only for further
studies that can be conducted in this subject at Ericsson, but also because the concept of virtual
teams is becoming more common, in line with increased globalization. Besides, this study is
relevant timely with what is going on in the world at the time of writing this thesis, as a result of
the covid-19 pandemic, forcing most of all people in the world to work virtually from home.
32
Dependability is about how consistent the study is, meaning if it can be carried out in the same
way, and likewise lead to the same results (Bryman & Bell, 2011). For this study, the criterion
should be fulfilled since it is based on established methods, procedures and that decisions have
been made with this criterion in mind. Confirmability is about how objective the study is, thus if
the researchers have allowed their values to affect the results (Bryman & Bell, 2011). This study
is intended to examine the true image of leadership in the context of virtual teams with a focus on
Ericsson. By having done a comprehensive literature review as well as conducting interviews at
Ericsson that later were analyzed and compared objectively, the result is not considered to be
subjectively affected. Something that further motivates this is that transcriptions were carried out,
which increases the reliability of the material from the interviews as it reduces the risk of
misinterpretation. Furthermore, the fact that three people were present during all interviews, two
of which were responsible for the interview further reduces the risk of misinterpretation. This,
because the interpretations were debated if something could have been misunderstood. As a
qualitative study according to (Bryman & Bell, 2011) can be perceived as an outcome of the
researchers’ many interpretations, all procedures and results have been critically reviewed.
Throughout the study, the goal has been to maintain this objectivity and to always be transparent
to all persons involved, for example when meeting with supervisors at Ericsson. This to constantly
show the reality and the development of the study. With these arguments, this criterion is
considered to be met.
Concerning authenticity, Scott (1990, as cited in Bryman and Bell, 201) claims that authenticity is
about whether the study is what it “claims to be”. Continuing, Lincoln and Guba (1985, as cited in
Bryman and Bell, 2011) mean that authenticity is about whether the study, in a fair way, can
represent a different point of view among a group of people. This criterion can be seen as fulfilled
from the manager/leader perspective since several leaders at each level were interviewed. Thus,
creating a more authentic picture than a study with only one level explored would have. However,
from other perspectives such as the team members, it is not fulfilled. Though, since this study is
focusing on the leader’s point of view, this is not seen as a shortage for the result. Besides, all
leaders were asked the same questions, making each interview contribute in the same way to the
result.
33
4 Empirical Findings and Analysis This part presents the study’s empirical findings that are based on the data collected from the
interviews conducted with leaders at Ericsson. The empirical findings within the areas:
communication, coordination and location. However, since the leaders brought up some
challenges connected to the areas, but not within the already identifies challenges, some new
headlines emerge in this section. Each area ends with an analysis section and a summarization of
the analysis.
4.1 General View on Virtual Teams
This chapter intends to provide a better understanding of the experiences of the interviewed
leaders, their understanding of why virtual teams exist, and how they define and measure success
in virtual teams. This, to create a clearer picture of the leader’s view of virtual teams before
answering the research questions.
4.1.1 Why Virtual Teams?
Interviewed leaders from all three sites state that the expansion of the labor pool is a huge benefit
with having virtual teams since it enables them to draw competencies and resources from more
places. To obtain resources with the right skills in specialized industries like the one Ericsson
operates in is especially important, mean the same leaders. The expanded labor pool also brings a
great diversity among the teams. Further, that the teams are scattered around the globe bring
benefits of being exposed to other cultures since people could have different mindsets, which
impacts the way of working.
“Virtual teams bring the world closer together and it helps us all grow.” [Leader 11]
All the interviewed leaders state that as a result of virtual teams, it is possible to make use of all
competencies spread around the world without having to be in one place. This creates flexibility
as team members can be moved between different teams, no matter what part of the world they are
in. Two leaders1 from different sites bring up that virtual teams allow the collaboration to happen
a lot more seamlessly without traveling which reduces travel expenses.
Benefits that four leaders from two different sites bring up with virtual teams is that it allows the
company to be active 24 hours a day, meaning that the different time zones enable one to hand
over a task to another team in a different time zone, and then take it on again the next day. One of
these four leaders means that having time differences creates improved possibilities to interact
with external and internal suppliers. Another benefit with virtual teams is according to two leaders
from different sites, that the meetings are more focused and structured with fewer interruptions
and talking about things that do not concern the main topic. It is considered being easier to clearly
define the scope and what is expected. Important to mention though, is that even if it brings benefits
in terms of increased focus level on meetings, one of the leaders states that he/she still prefers co-
located teams that meet face to face. Another benefit that one leader having a project manager role
1 To be noted is that, because some leader/s in the empirical findings are saying something, this does not mean that
the remaining leaders feel the opposite, if that is the case it is mentioned clearly.
34
brings up, is that in virtual teams, everyone is accessible, thus it is not necessary to look for people
in the office.
It seems to be a unified view among all the interviewed leaders that virtual teams from the
beginning are created because of a business need or a business goal, where the right competencies
or experiences for fulfilling the need or goal are available at different places in the world. This,
regardless of whether it concerns a program or a project. At the same time, the agile- and Scrum
way of working must be integrated, and it focuses on creating more long-term teams. The leaders
state that the idea is to create teams that are more efficient in each part of the team. If one works
and get to know each other and make it long-term, one becomes more efficient at solving a task.
Someone who has leadership experience is also chosen because there must be a leader within the
team.
4.1.2 Performance and Success
All interviewed leaders have one thing in common when looking at the measuring of performance
and success in virtual teams, that the teams meet their goals within the given time frame. One of
the more experienced leaders explains in detail that to measure performance and success, the team
members and the person giving the tasks must understand both what is to be done and what the
expectations look like. If the team delivers according to expectations, meaning achieving a certain
quality over a certain period, that is the reference point. Then the performance can be both above
and below that reference point. Thus, there must be some kind of standard before starting the task
for performance and success to be measured. Four leaders from the two sites in Sweden point out
that the teams themselves put up their deadlines. Thus, the leaders state that a high performing
team is also good at estimating. If the team does not deliver like expected, one leader states the
following:
“What you have to do then is to analyze the reason for why the task is not fulfilled in the
desired way. The task could have been too difficult, not understood by the team or the team
might not have the right competence to fulfill the task.” [Leader 3]
Several leaders from different positions and sites express that it is more difficult to measure success
in virtual teams compared to regular on-site teams. The reason for that is because one way to get
a perception of how everything is going is to meet and talk to your team. Some tools enable
measurements on how the teams are delivering compared to their schedule, however, those tools
do not cover the whole picture. The reason for that is according to the leaders that performance
and success also are about the wellbeing of the team, their way of communicating with each other,
their thriving in what they do, as well as how they help each other with the tasks. One line manager
explains to measures performance and success with what he/she hears from other team members,
as well as those the leader cooperates with. All pieces of feedback put together create a picture of
the performance, and that is compared with the perception the leader has on his/her own.
35
4.2 Communication
In the following section, the empirical findings concerning communication are presented. The
majority of the findings are about the already identified parts, but there is one additional part as
well that the previous studies do not address. Thus, the section is divided into: Building trust and
cohesion, Information communication technology tools, and the new identified challenge Balance
the communication flow. Following is an analysis of the topics.
4.2.1 Building Trust and Cohesion
The general perception among all twelve leaders is that trust is more difficult to build at distance,
but it is important to build trust so that the leader and team members can have open conversations
with each other. One leader from the site in Kista state that if one earns trust in virtual teams and
has transparency towards them, then 70 % of the work is done and it becomes “business as usual”.
All twelve leaders also agree that it is important to meet the persons who are in your virtual team
face to face, and most of the leaders emphasize that it is especially important in the beginning
when the team is created. It is stated by these leaders that meeting in person is important to enable
building trust and relationships. Also, the same leaders mean that communication and cooperation
through ICT tools work better after the team has met. Some leaders from different sites with
different leadership roles and experiences, also highlight the importance of arranging activities for
team members when they are at visit on another site because spending time together helps to build
trust within the team. Here are two statements from two leaders having a project- respective a
program manager role concerning the topic:
“Face to face communication is considered a human need.” [Leader 8]
“It is important that they get to meet me as a leader, otherwise I just become a voice on
for example the telephone.” [Leader 5]
One leader with a long leadership experience claims that it is the leader’s responsibility to put up
an initial meeting and to make sure that all new team members are introduced. If it is not possible
to put up a face to face meeting, the leader must help to establish contact by setting up a virtual
meeting and helping them to get started. To use video more often is another action that leaders
from all three sites bring up with the motivation that it makes it possible to see the other person’s
gestures and how information is received. Another way to address the challenge with
communication is to call someone if questions emerge instead of using a chat because making a
call somehow keeps the distance smaller, thus increasing the sense of belonging. One leader also
tries to participate more in daily meetings to show presence. As two leaders from the two Swedish
sites describe it:
“The key is to build a relationship first, before expecting some kind of work.” [Leader 4]
“It is important to have one-on-ones with the team members no matter if they are remote
or not. In those meetings you as a leader should ask how the person is doing, feeling and
try to create a bit of connection to each other.” [Leader 10]
36
To earn trust is something that several leaders with different leadership roles, from all three sites
state takes time. It is a challenge to create a sense of belonging claims one leader from one of the
Swedish sites, because casual conversations about for example what one did during the weekend,
does not occur in the same way through Microsoft Skype and Microsoft Teams. Further, those
conversations usually create cohesion when working at the same site and when having regular
meetings by the coffee machine for example. Team members working remotely must get the
feeling that they belong to the team and that there is cohesion. Succeeding in creating cohesion is
therefore considered important according to a leader with long leadership experience. The same
leader claims that if the leader is not getting enough information about how the teams are feeling,
what they are doing, and what is coming down in life for them, then the leader cannot respond and
put the right opportunities in front of them. According to one leader with a project manager role,
that is probably the biggest action that a leader works on, to try to build trust and relationship with
the team members. To create trust and commitment, it is important to find the motivation in what
the team members want to do and who they want to be, in contrast with what the leader wants.
Two leaders with the same leadership role explain it as follows:
“Here are your needs and here are the business needs, but you know, I recognize that your
need is different, and I want to work to overlap all those as best I can.” [Leader 12]
“Trust is not only about the talk, it is that I am actually trying to do something so quarter
after quarter they see that if they have said that they want to go in one direction and there
is an opening, even if it is in another team, I will let them know about that and discuss it
with them. Hopefully that will build trust over time, so that they know that I am actually
interested in their growth.” [Leader 9]
Several leaders with different positions at different sites highlight that to be transparent and honest
(to give honest feedback) is important to build trust. One program manager means that as a leader,
one can show that it is okay to not know everything, to show vulnerability in a way that makes the
team feel that it is okay for them to not always have the answer. It can also be to recognize what
the team members have done and about coaching, claims the same leader. One leader from a
Swedish site explains that in cases where the leaders are not allowed to share the information, one
as a leader must find ways to let the teams know as soon as possible, what the reason behind it is.
There is a risk according to the same leader, that people sitting off-site gets de-motivated because
they cannot take part in corridor talks and therefore does not get the same opportunity to take part
in what is going on. Therefore, to let them know as soon as possible is of importance. Being
consistent and genuinely try to help the team and listen to them, is also important to build trust.
One leader with a project manager role said:
“To show that you want to help and that you listen, one thing that helps is to pause, to
practice silence in between the conversations. Instead of saying what you as a leader think,
ask more questions. What are the options? Why is it this? And why is it that? Making a
statement does not go well. We may not be experts so being humble is very important.”
[Leader 4]
37
An action that several of the leaders from different sites take to create commitment is to make sure
that when a team has done something great, it is highlighted and appreciated. One of the line
managers means that celebrating success is also an important action and a way to show that the
team is doing well, as it is important that they feel that they bring value. That is also further done
by making sure that the teams get the whole picture. It can be difficult to see the overall aim of a
project or program as one as a team focuses a lot on the tasks. Therefore, it is important according
to leaders from all three sites to help the teams to understand what they should do, what they do,
and why they are doing it, as well as how it impacts the total outcome. To get this information
have been requested by the teams in previous feedback that the leaders have received. One leader
at a project manager role explains another action to create commitment, which is to involve
everyone in the team (co-located and remote teams) when setting the goals for each sprint (a set
period where a specific task should be completed and prepared for review). The goals are discussed
and debated so that all team members have the same opportunity to say what is achievable and not.
When the goals are agreed upon, they are set, and the team works together for achieving them.
Commitment is created as a result of the team defining goals together, as well as they are striving
to achieve them together.
4.2.2 Information Communication Technology Tools
Several leaders from all three sites state that not being able to see each other face to face makes a
lot of difference since it is not possible to assess the team members’ body language and then one
as a leader does not know how to react. Thus, as one of the leaders at a program manager role
explain it, one may have to take the wrong action to find out what action would have been the right
one to take. As the same leader describes it:
“So, it would have to fire back being bad for me to figure out the groups that went wrong,
that I should have taken another turn somewhere else.” [Leader 4]
All twelve leaders express that communication is a challenge in virtual teams, and several of the
leaders from different sites with different leadership roles state it to be the largest one. It is a
challenge in virtual teams to get relevant information documented in a good way so that everyone
can take part in it. Several of these leaders also find it to be a challenge to communicate through
Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Skype and e-mail with persons with different backgrounds. One more
experienced leader means that it can be difficult to identify if people are understanding what is
said, partly because one tends to lose nuances at virtual meetings. Thus, it is more difficult for
people to pick up, or signal that one does not understand, as well as who is in line to talk. This is
considered to take time to learn and it causes misunderstandings. It can be challenging to keep the
structure and to keep people focused on something complicated. For example, when having a task
force, and something is urgent to be solved, it can be difficult to show exactly what to solve and
how, claims the same leader. One concrete example that another leader from another site has
experienced was that during a meeting, they were filming on a real whiteboard and no one that
attended the meeting told them that the picture was reversed. Being aware of that kind of situations,
that people may not always speak up when something is wrong, is very important. Communication
through ITC tools is stated by one leader at a project manager position as a challenge because it
often causes delays and a slower product development compared to when communicating face to
38
face. To make people use the camera while communicating virtually is also mentioned as
challenging according to two leaders from different sites having different leadership positions.
One line manager said as follows:
“Before Corona, we didn´t use the video very much. It was all with the little picture or
symbol instead. That takes away a lot of face to face communication. We don´t see or sense
very well what supplementary messages that are within the verbal mode. If that person is
also a foreigner and has a different first language that adds up to the challenge. I think
that understanding the communication barrier as long as possible is the challenge.”
[Leader 9]
One project manager mentions connectivity issues as something that hinders communication as
the audio and video do not work correctly if the internet is unstable.
According to many of the leaders from all three sites, success in virtual teams has a lot to do with
communication. These leaders express that there should be a clear structure of how communication
should take place, especially with the team members being off-site. The processes should be
clearly defined so that one can rely on it and it would also be beneficial to educate both the teams
and the leaders in the processes that are used. The information and communication tools that the
leaders are using and that most of the leaders prefer are video conversation software programs
such as Microsoft Teams and Microsoft Skype. Microsoft Teams makes it possible to share
documents and to use a whiteboard function. It also includes benefits such as sharing a whole
conversation with someone afterward. One leader from a Swedish site state it to be crucial that one
can provide and compile information through the same tool as well as give direct feedback instead
of sending it later by e-mail or similar tools. Other tools that are used in general are e-mails and
SharePoint. E-mails are used a lot by all the interviewed leaders, but it is also the means of
communication that most of the leaders are critical to. This because they claim to get many e-mails
every day, thus it can be difficult to sort out the important ones.
“I get so much e-mail that it’s hard to sort out the important ones. It is only a flow of
information that comes all the time and you may not get an answer in time.” [Leader 5]
Many leaders, from the different sites at different leadership positions, highlight the importance of
using video when having virtual conversations with their teams. These leaders agree that by using
video, one gets to see the teams’ facial expressions and body language, it creates a sense of
belonging, and it especially makes a difference when one never has met the person one is talking
to. Another leader, having a line manager position means that by using video, it builds a different
kind of trust when comparing to communication via e-mail for example. One way to make people
use their cameras during meetings more often is, according to one leader with long leadership
experience, to let them know in advance that it will be a video-call so that everyone is prepared
for it. Another leader with similar leadership experience, suggests keeping conference meetings in
smaller rooms (when several people are at the same place) as that helps the communication.
One program manager states that what is communicated must be clear, thus, putting in some extra
effort in the formulations of e-mails and how they are expected to be interpreted is a way of
addressing the challenge with communication. To avoid losing important information in e-mails,
39
one leader (also situated in Kista) and his/her team tries to put everything important in shared
documents instead. In that way, it is easier to find important information and not lose it. Also,
several leaders from different sites mean that it is important to be aware that different cultures
might have different perceptions of how a leader should behave and act. To better handle the
challenge with communication, one leader with a project manager position recommends daily
meetings, although that may be difficult to implement because the teams think that having
meetings every day takes too much time. However, the same leader believes it would improve the
situation as it enables immediate feedback. Another leader from the same site promotes daily
meetings as well, especially in periods when the teams do not deliver like expected. The solution
to decrease miscommunication and to avoid that teams do not speak up when they do not
understand something is to ask more questions. As one leader with a line manager position
describes it:
“The solution is to keep asking more questions. This, to make sure that you understand
what they are trying to say. Get a handshake, not just get the first sentence that they say
and say yes, let´s move on. Rephrase it and put it back to them and make sure that what
they are saying is understood correctly.” [Leader 9]
Another leader at a project manager position states:
“Sometimes it can be good to suddenly ask: What do you think?” [Leader 10]
One line manager states that intentional communication is the solution. He/she means that you
should spend a little more time to make sure that every sentence and every statement is well
understood. It takes intentional effort to try to paraphrase what the team members are saying and
to make sure they understand. Another leader from another site recommends making sure to ask
questions to all participants at the meetings, as well as verify that they are involved. To distribute
the topics of the agenda is also a strategy to increase activity and understanding. Also, using
minutes at the beginning of meetings can do the same, thus leaders can make sure that stuff does
not fall between chairs. The same leader’s strategy is therefore to continue having conversations
with the team members and simply communicate more frequently than he/she would have been
done if meeting face to face. Thus, the strategy is similar to the solution of the leader proposing
daily meetings. It is important to have an agenda at the meetings and that the agenda is clearly
defined and easy to follow. Something that has worked for one project manager is to distribute the
responsibility of taking notes during the meetings. That should be done by different people at
different meetings, as that creates commitment. It also makes it easier to see if what is said, is
understood, as well as making it possible to go back in time to see what has been discussed at
previous meetings, according to the project manager.
4.2.3 Balance the Communication Flow
Almost all the twelve interviewed leaders claim that it is difficult to find a balance in the
communication flow and how to accomplish the balance, is discussed internally. One experienced
leader situated at a site in Sweden means that the balance is something one just learns, that it comes
with experience. Also, most of the leaders from the three sites once again point out the problem
with too many e-mails. One leader having a project manager role has a strategy that is about trying
40
to send fewer e-mails. Also, when sending emails, it is stated by the leader as very important to
have a well-chosen headline, otherwise, the e-mail might be sorted out. The same leader claims
that it happens that the same headline is used for two different purposes, thus causing issues
because the purpose of the e-mail can be assumed to be solved already (as the task of the first e-
mail was solved). Another leader from the same site claims that his/her solution, besides avoiding
sending too many e-mails is to make sure that the e-mails reach the right persons. This can be done
by avoiding using existing mailing lists, where for example all people within a department are
included and thus receive the e-mail. If one person in a team needs feedback, the same leader uses
other tools to communicate with them. The reason for that is because the leader believes that the
team members feel less involved if the communication takes place through e-mails that are sent
out to a lot of people, instead of doing one-on-one communication via Microsoft Skype or
Microsoft Teams. Another leader from another site implemented ground rules for communication
when he/she became a leader and mean that preferably the ground rules should be set together
through a workshop for example. The decision on what rules to be used was in this case decided
together with the teams. The same leader states:
“It was decided that e-mails within the team should be answered at the end of the business
day and chats within about 15 minutes.” [Leader 9]
Another strategy one leader from the site in Austin tries to practice for keeping the number of e-
mails down is to have a rule of how many e-mails that can be sent. If one does not get in contact
with the person after four e-mails, one must pick up the phone and call the person or call in for a
meeting. Another leader with a line manager position at another site collects questions that are not
urgent, and then ask all questions at the same time in, for example, in a meeting instead of sending
several e-mails.
When asking the leaders how often they communicate virtually with their teams, a quite different
frequency can be distinguished, see Table 3 below. To be noticed is that consultants and external
suppliers are not included in the table, this is because all leaders do not have consultants or
suppliers that they cooperate with virtually.
Table 3: How often the leaders communicate with their team members virtually
Frequency in
communication
with team
members (not
face to face)
Several
times per
day
Once a day Several
times a
week
Sometime
every
week
Sometime
every
other
week
More
rarely
than once
every
other
week
# of leaders 2 2 2 3 2 1
Almost all the interviewed leaders, consider that one should meet one’s teams that are not co-
located at least once every three months. They also claim that they would like to meet their teams
face to face more often. One leader at a project manager position states that if the tasks are very
complex, face to face meetings are arranged more often since it is easier to solve problems that
way.
41
4.2.4 Analysis: Communication
In this section the analysis of the area communication takes place, thus the theory is connected to
the empirical findings to answer the research question:
RQ1: What type of communication is essential for virtual teams to work effectively?
The section is divided into: Building trust and cohesion, Information communication technology
tools and a new identified challenge Balance the communication flow.
Building Trust and Cohesion
To build trust and cohesion is important according to all twelve interviewed leaders and the
perception is that trust is more difficult to build at distance, which can be explained by DuFrene
and Lehman’s (2016) statement saying that not meeting face to face in the hallway or in similar
situations, complicates the opportunities to build relations. Edwards and Wilson (2004), Miloslavic
et al. (2015), and Zander et al. (2013) state the importance of meeting face to face when working
virtually, especially in a newly created team. That goes in line with what all twelve leaders state,
that meeting face to face when working in a virtual team is very important, especially in the
beginning. One experienced leader mentions that it is the leader’s responsibility to put up an initial
meeting and to make sure that all new team members are introduced to each other, that the leader
feels that responsibility can be explained by the importance of the first expression, as Zander et al.
(2013) emphasize. It can further be explained with what Zander et al. (2013) claim, that it is the
leader’s responsibility to encourage the team to for example share background information about
themselves, to improve the relationship building and to make up for the more informal
conversations that otherwise occur in co-located teams, as for example conversations by the coffee
machine. That the leaders find trust and cohesion important can also be explained with what
Miloslavic et al. (2015) claim that team members of virtual teams are considerably dependent on
each other to achieve their goals, and when interdependence increase, it becomes more vital to put
extra energy on processes that develop trust and cohesion. This goes to some extent in line with
what a project manager claims that if the tasks are very complex and team members are dependent
on each other’s work, face to face meetings are arranged more often since it is easier to solve the
problem in that way as it allows better cooperation.
That several leaders with different leadership roles from the different sites, find it important to
create the feeling of belonging and cohesion even though the teams are not located at the same
site, can be explained with DuFrene and Lehman’s (2016) theory, saying that the feeling of
isolation can make one feel socially unemployed and is therefore important to work with. Why it
is important to create a sense of belonging can also be explained by Avolio and Kahai’s (2003)
theory, meaning that teams that almost only use ICT tools to communicate, may feel like
their opinions are of less value and not considered to the same extent as the opinions of team
members that are situated at the same site as the leader. If the leaders are not getting enough
information about how their teams are feeling, what they are doing and what is coming down in
life for them, then the leader cannot help responding and put the right opportunities in front of
them claims one of the interviewed and more experienced leader. This is considered to be an
important issue to work with to build trust and relationships with the teams. This is in line with
42
what Eikenberry and Turmel (2018) state, that leaders of virtual teams should intentionally
encourage the building of relationships with all team members. Avolio and Kahai (2003) also
sympathize with this and mean that a virtual leader can try to communicate to the team as a whole
and not put the focus on differences in individuals, meaning that the leader could refer to the team
as “us” and “we” when communicating. Another leader with a project manager position states that,
to create trust and commitment is important to find the motivation in what the team members want
to do and who they want to be, in contrast to what the leader wants. In line with this is what Zander
et al. (2013) claim, meaning that the motivation in the team increases if the leadership style being
used is the one preferred by the team member.
Several leaders attach great importance to honesty and transparency towards the teams, both in
feedback and other situations, as that is considered important for building trust. The same leaders
also highlight that not only what one says, but the actions one takes, must show that the leader
wants to help the team forward. This can also be explained by what Eikenberry and Turmel (2018)
state about encouraging the building of relationships. The same leaders find it important to build
commitment, something that is done by several different actions. For example, by showing
appreciation and uplift someone/some when something great has been accomplished, is an action
that Zander et al. (2013) explain can generate the feeling of contribution to a common achievement
and it increases commitment as well as motivation. One of the interviewed leaders with a program
manager position means that as a leader one should use the time for building relationships within
the virtual team, as well as strive to give the team members recognition for their work. This is fully
in line with Malhotra et al. (2007) that mean that the leader should use the time for building
relationships at the beginning of meetings within the virtual team and strive to give each team
member recognition for their work by for example doing check-ups during meetings to make sure
that everyone is engaged and express themselves. Another action that one leader at a line manager
position emphasizes, is to clarify the purpose of the virtual teams’ work and how it brings value to
the bigger picture. The reason why that is perceived as important can be explained by several
statements from previous studies. For instance, Zander et al. (2013) claim that it is important for
leaders to work with goal alignment through discussions where the organizational goals are
connected to the objectives of the project. Davis and Bryant (2003) state that if team members
have a shared purpose and goal, that will ensure both collaboration and coordination. Another
action to create commitment brought up by a project manager is to involve everyone in the team,
no matter where they are located when setting the goals for each sprint so that everyone agrees
upon them.
Information Communication Technology Tools
One of the major challenges presented by leaders from the three different sites at different
leadership positions consider that not seeing their teams face to face make a lot of difference. This
can be explained with DuFrene and Lehman’s (2016) theory, that it depends on the lack of
nonverbal cues. It is also mentioned by the same leaders as challenging and a reason for why video
conversations in many cases are preferred. This can also be related to what Miloslavic et al. (2015)
state, that tools providing facial expressions and social visual signals are “less virtual” and thereby
more similar to the communication of co-located teams. This is in line with Eikenberry and
43
Turmel’s (2018) view, they mean that the usage of video-communication is important as humans
by nature rely on nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions and therefore crave that kind of
interaction. That can also explain why these leaders prefer using video since it creates better
opportunities to build trust and cohesion. Further, this study suggests that communication via ICT
tools becomes easier after having met, which also can depend on the nonverbal cues, meaning that
they are easier to understand after having interacted face to face.
That it can be challenging to get people to use their camera during meetings, is something that is
mentioned by two leaders from different sites, having different leadership positions, but the
theories do not bring that up. The recommended solution mentioned by one leader is to let the team
know on forehand that video is requested. Edwards and Wilson (2004) mention that it is important
that all team members are comfortable with the tools being used, which can motivate why letting
people know on forehand can be beneficial. That leaders might be uncomfortable with the tools
being used, is in line with Jarvenpaa and Leidner’s (1999) statement, that the virtual team
environment is filled with uncertainty and contains questions such as: Are other team members
getting the messages? How is their commitment? Do they have any technical problems? Edwards
and Wilson (2004) also emphasize the importance of choosing the right technology for the purpose.
This can explain why the interviewed leaders use several different kinds of ICT tools, like for
example e-mail, telephone-calls, and video-calls. Further, it can be explained by Miloslavic et al.’s
(2015) recommendation, that state that virtual teams that are highly dependent on each other,
should apply synchronous communication tools that amplifies face to face communication to
promote teamwork behaviors and attitudes; for lower interdependent teams, less synchronized
communication tools can be used. It is also strengthened by Eikenberry and Turmel (2018) who
explain that the leader should gather information in different ways by using different ICT tools, as
well as the leader should make sure to communicate with several persons, gathering their input
and knowledge to generate a clearer picture of the reality. One leader with a line manager position
also states that different tools can signal different messages, for example, using one-on-one
communication, can make the team member feel more involved than communication via an e-mail
that is sent to a lot of people, which further can be explained by Edwards and Wilson’s (2004)
theory. This can also be reflected in what Kayworth and Leidner (2002) state, that effective leaders
appear to be very efficient in ways of communication by practicing regular, detailed, and direct
communication with their employees. Using direct communication is also something that most of
the leaders at all sites emphasize as important thus it is in line with the theory.
Two leaders from two different sites, with different leadership roles, bring up that the means for
communication should be established. That is in line with what Edwards and Wilson (2004) state,
that defining how meetings and communication should take place and through which tools, should
be established in virtual teams. Zander et al. (2013) also state the importance of setting the means
of communication. By using efficient communication and knowledge sharing, the decision making
will be more effective as well as the alignment of goals. Preferably, according to a line manager,
it should be done together with the team members, which also can be motivated by Edwards and
Wilson’s (2004) statement, that all team members should be comfortable with the tools that are
used. That can also explain why some leaders find that it would be beneficial if the leaders and the
team members got educated on how to use the tools, what processes should be used and how it
44
should be used. Edwards and Wilson (2004) also state that knowledge about the technological
solutions that are used should be obtained before the communication that depends on it, but that
rarely is the case. This further motivates why at least one leader has identified this as necessary.
Eikenberry and Turmel (2018) also emphasize that skills in the tools are important and that a lack
of it can cause big problems.
The difficulty of analyzing silent moments during virtual meetings is something that is addressed
by one experienced leader. The same leader means that it is difficult to know if people that one
communicates with virtually has understood what has been said since it is more difficult for people
to pick up or signal that they do not understand, as well as who is in line to talk, and that one tends
to lose nuances at virtual meetings. This goes in line with the theory of Malhotra et al. (2007),
which claims that it is difficult to know whether a team member is prepared for or are mentally
present in a virtual meeting and if silence from someone is a sign of compliance or distraction. The
same leader points out that it can be difficult to know if the information that one as a leader
communicates is understood or not and as mentioned earlier the information must be perceived
correctly. This is in line with what Zander et al. (2013) mention, that in virtual teams, nothing can
be assumed. Everything must be clarified to make sure that all members of the virtual team have
the same interpretation. This can according to several leaders at different sites and positions be
done by for example asking a lot of questions until being sure that everything is understood
correctly. Two of the interviewed leaders with project manager positions, also highlight that a clear
agenda is necessary and that taking notes during meetings is a responsibility that can be rotated
and assigned to other sites, this action could be taken to easier identify if everything is understood
correctly, partly as it enables direct feedback. This can be seen as a creative way to establish
processes, something that Malhotra et al. (2007) emphasize as important in virtual teams as it can
enable the detection of things virtually that might otherwise be unexpected. Taking notes at
meetings is also in line with Malhotra et al.’s (2007) statement, that at the end of meetings, the
leader should make sure that protocol as well as a plan for future work, are saved in the repository.
Balance the Communication Flow
The leaders recommend setting up more meetings and that communication virtually should occur
more often than it would if working face to face. That recommendation can be explained by
Kayworth and Leidner’s (2002) theory, that effective leaders seem to offer regular, detailed and
direct communication with their employees. Avolio and Kahai (2003) likewise emphasize the
importance of communicating often within the team, especially in a newly formed team,
motivating the recommendation further.
The exact frequency of communication with different kind of tools are not specified in theory,
other than that communication should take place regularly and often, as just mentioned by Avolio
and Kahai (2003) and Kayworth and Leidner’s (2002). What can be found in the empirical data
indicates that to balance the communication flow, is a challenge for the leaders. Almost all leaders
bring it up as challenging, that is why Balance the communication flow is brought up in this study
as an additional challenge that needs to be addressed within the area communication. To set ground
rules for communication have been highlighted as important, and one leader with a line manager
position did that to the extent that time restrictions was put on when to answer chats (after about
45
15 minutes) as well as e-mails (by the end of the business day), which partly can be seen as a
solution to the challenge. Thus, the result of the study suggests that defining not only what tools
to use when but also put up some priorities concerning what is most urgent to answer first can be
beneficial. The importance of defining how to communicate is also in line with Malhotra et al.’s
(2007) statement about the importance of setting standards for the team about how ICT tools
should be used and the frequency of it, and that it should be norms that describe for example, what
to post, in a way that there will not be an overload of information. How often the leaders
communicate with their teams vary a lot. That can be explained by Miloslavic et al.’s (2015)
theory, that the importance of efficient communication and making efforts for building trust and
cohesion is more vital when having a higher level of interdependence. Thus, that may be the reason
why the frequency of communication is so different. Still, the leaders agree that meeting once
every quarter with teams positioned far away, is a minimum.
Summarization Analysis Communication
All in all, the way of addressing the challenges of building trust and cohesion is fully in accordance
with the theory. The only suggestion that one leader brings up, but the theory does not emphasize,
is a way to build commitment, by setting up goals together with all the team members. Still, that
suggestion can to some extent be seen as confirmed in theory as Zander et al. (2013) mention
discussions of organizational goals as important in addition to Davis and Bryant (2003) who bring
up the benefits of having shared goals and purpose.
The ways of addressing the challenge with communication via ICT tools that the leaders bring up
are supported by what the theories claim. However, from this study, it appears that it can be
challenging to get the team members to use their cameras, something that is not highlighted in the
previous studies. The importance of using video in virtual teams is however just as emphasized in
theory, as by the interviewed leaders. The study presents a more nuanced way of how creative
ways of communicating can look like than what is presented in the theory. For example by
revealing that some tools are more appropriate for some purposes than others, further, this study
suggests that communication via ICT tools becomes easier after meeting the team members in
person, something that the theory does not state.
The frequency of communication and to balance the communication flow is as mentioned not
brought up in detail in the theory. However, this study indicates that succeeding in balancing the
communication flow, can be a challenge in virtual teams. Further, to set ground rules concerning
communication and how to prioritize is one way to address the challenge that emerged in the study.
46
4.3 Coordination
In this section, the empirical findings in the area coordination are presented. All findings are within
the area coordination, but there is one additional topic that the previous studies did not address in
the same way as it emerged in the empirical study. Thus, the section is divided into: Role structure
and distribution of human resources and the additional topic Leadership characteristics. That is
followed by an analysis of the empirical findings and lastly, a summary.
4.3.1 Role Structure and Distribution of Human Resources
The role structure and distribution of human resources are presented below in two separate parts
to make the structure clearer.
Role Structure
The interviewed leaders’ view on how the distribution of responsibility should take place vary a
bit. Several leaders from different sites, with different leadership positions, explain that the
distribution is based on the Scrum methodology (this applies to both virtual teams and regular co-
located teams) where responsibility is divided between a technical manager called OPO (a person
that is expected to answer technical questions from the team and from others concerning if there
are possibilities to develop a specific technical function or similar) and a Scrum master (a person
that on the paper is responsible for how the team performs). Also, there are the informal leaders
that are stated to either emerge naturally as people step up by own initiative or by the initiative of
someone else seeing the potential in a person. Some teams are responsible for their planning
schedules and some are not, and that depends on who makes the plans. Some of the teams do the
planning on their own and just give the leader the dates, and some teams want help with
calculations and to come up with the plan. Similarly, another leader with a program manager
position claims that in the teams, people are not officially responsible for specific parts (except for
the OPO and Scrum master), but if one person has worked a lot with something, that person might
be in-officially responsible. This works well in teams where people want to take on responsibility,
but less well in teams where no one does. In teams with a more directing work-culture where one
gets assignments and complete them, that kind of sharing of responsibility works less well. It is up
to the teams themselves to decide how responsibilities are distributed in general, like in self-
organized teams. Thus, if people do not take responsibility, it does not work so well since no one
wants to do the part considered being “less fun”.
One project leader positioned at the site in Lund states that the distribution of responsibilities, in
general, is done in the beginning when defining the roles and what is included in each person’s
responsibilities. Usually the team-leads are included in the core-team, thus they take on more
responsibility. Another experienced program manager states that one must push the
responsibilities/the autonomy down in the teams and help every individual and most especially,
those who want to develop leadership skills.
As a line manager at another site expresses it:
“You cannot push leadership and a lot of responsibility where the cast does not exist. But
if the potential is there you can develop it and then work towards that.” [Leader 12]
47
According to the same line manager, the more senior one gets, the more one wants to get
autonomous in what one does. One understands that one must meet business needs. The way the
leader approach this, is to always try to understand and overlap every single team members’ talents
and passions with the business needs. Besides, the same leader looks to the ones in the team that
he/she recognizes having some leadership capacity. Also, the leader looks at who the team sees as
an authority, their informal leader. The same leader claims that most of the time there is an overlap,
but occasionally leaders must work on getting somebody to express that talent and passion for that
to show up. In terms of distributing, especially in virtual teams, one as a leader needs to make sure
that one is factoring the distribution into the mix. Several leaders from the Swedish sites with
different leadership positions, agree that the distribution of responsibilities is beneficial and that
working in virtual teams works better when the team members have different responsibilities and
the division is clearly defined. Looking at decision making, one leader with a line manager position
emphasizes that it is important to have a structure to avoid that the wrong decisions are made and
to make it as fair as possible for the team members. Looking at the team, it is good to distribute
the responsibilities and that different team members have different areas to be responsible for.
Otherwise, especially in virtual teams, the experience of the line manager is that people blame
each other for not accomplishing the tasks in time. Therefore, it can be beneficial that someone
has the last say. Several leaders with different positions situated at different sites, mean that the
team members should be responsible for different parts. However, it is highlighted by a leader
situated in Lund that the team should still cooperate. Another leader states the opposite, that a well-
functioning team is a team that helps each other a lot, and the tasks are not divided and separated.
Similarly, another leader with a line manager role states that shared leadership and decision-
making leads to better decisions.
“We always want to emphasize teamwork; however, it is true that it works best if in any
point in time, each person has an assigned task (it could be small). It doesn’t mean that
you take a personal note, give a task or two and say come back when you are done. But it
is good if on a weekly basis each person gets self-contained, well-defined tasks, and goes
on and performs that task, and then gives the output to the team.” [Leader 9]
According to one project manager, it is beneficial to have a local team leader as it can be difficult
to take part in everything that happens when working from remote. The same leader further states
that one as a leader should try to create local teams, and then one can have teams that work together
across borders. Having fully distributed teams where all team members are distributed, is
considered difficult. Three leaders with different leadership roles, at the three different sites, also
find it more difficult to make sure that everyone’s potential is utilized in virtual teams. The reason
for that is that one does not meet in-person to the same extent and it reduces the face to face
conversations that otherwise would have given an idea of the potential of the person. Conversations
about how everything is going, if the person wants help with anything such as more support, or if
a person wants to do something else, can create an understanding for a person’s potential and make
it emerge more naturally. Therefore, to make sure that their potential is utilized as well as that they
work towards their wanted direction is easier. One way of handling problems according to one
leader situated at the site in Kista is by delegating responsibilities to others. Two other leaders
positioned at the sites in Austin and Kista, mean that by getting help from managers that are
48
positioned at the same site as the team members, it is easier to ensure that everyone’s potential is
utilized in a wanted way.
Looking at the role structure, the majority of the leaders find it important to push the
responsibilities as far down as possible in the hierarchy, claiming that hierarchy is a feeling that
needs to be suppressed as it causes the feeling of distance, while others find hierarchy as necessary.
Especially when working with so many different people it is stated that it would not be possible to
keep contact with everyone and thus the hierarchy makes it easier. On the contrary, one project
manager state that the problem with hierarchy is specifically that instead of creating a feeling of
contact with the whole team and empower them, one only keeps contact with formal and informal
leaders, which is considered as being negative. Some leaders located at all three sites and having
different leadership roles, highlight the importance of the ability to empower team members. This,
by helping the team members feel that they truly are a part of the team, to create as well as maintain
cohesion, especially by preserving that connection aspect and by making sure to keep everyone
within the team challenged and involved. One leader at a program manager position said:
“Looking at ideal leadership in virtual teams, the leader has to delegate a lot to the teams.
This means that the teams have to have all the information to be able to make their own
decisions as well as they have to be mandated to do it.” [Leader 5]
The same leader highlights some issues with that, for example, that it easily becomes top
management and the leaders try to control everything instead of letting the teams make decisions.
The problem with that is that the team might become less active because they do not dare to act on
their own. Thus, the leader promotes that the team is more self-organized like the Scrum
methodology indicates. More self-organized/autonomous teams are mentioned as preferred by
several other leaders as well. One action that a leader with a program manager position takes to
suppress the feeling of distance, is to sit close to the on-site team, instead of sitting in separately
with other managers.
Several leaders with different leadership roles, situated at all three sites state that virtual teamwork
results in better outcomes and a more productive work if everybody in the team has understood
what is expected of them, as well as what tasks they must do. Especially if there is a new team
member, there should be no confusion concerning the role of that person. Thus, putting the
responsibility on the leader to clearly define the different roles and make sure that the teams
understand the importance of them is important, as well as that the leader should steer the team
members in the right direction. For example, concerning the role of a Scrum master, it is
recommended by one leader to rotate the role just so that everyone understands the value it brings
before the original Scrum master gets the role back. That leader does not believe that the leadership
should be rotated though, that opinion is shared with other leaders as well. The reason for why, as
a line manager express it, is as follows:
“Regarding structure you should not have a rotating leadership for the reason that you
need someone on the other side that you know. It is very important that you have the same
contact with someone all the time. This personal contact is very important, as you build
trust over time.” [Leader 2]
49
The same leader mentions though that if one has that kind of relationship with several persons, the
leadership could rotate between them like it is currently during vacations and similar. Two line
managers and one program manager state that the ideal structure of virtual leadership depends on
factors like for example culture. One line manager at one of the Swedish sites states that some
cultures that are more hierarchal and traditional cultures may not understand the concept of a
shared or rotated leadership. How much of the leadership that can be shared, the same leader
claims, is depending on technical background and expertise. One action that the leader states as
necessary though is that the whole team participates at the beginning of a sprint when what can be
done is set, so that everyone agrees upon what can be accomplished.
Distribution of Human Resources
Regarding how the teams look like there are some guidelines about how big they should be
according to one of the program managers; usually, the size of the teams is around eight to ten
people, both in co-located and virtual teams. The number comes from working guidelines with
agile methods and Scrum. Another leader having a line manager role state that a new team can be
created if an already existing team needs to be expanded. If recruiting into an already existing
team, that is due to a specific business need within the team, or if one team member is getting a
promotion, but it can also depend on the person in question is asking for it himself/herself. The
decision is based on the person’s fit for the tasks as well as the person itself. Also, Ericsson has
brought together people on special initiatives, where they have been able to do some arrangements
quickly, but those include people that they are already familiar with. Managers at Ericsson do try
to work together, meaning that if Ericsson has multiple projects they are working on and some are
higher priorities than others, they might have to add resources to these projects by moving
resources from projects with lower priority. One leader line manager states:
“Sometimes resources come from other sites, but it could also be that we hire one very
good consultant for a short period of time. Typically, we negotiate between different
managers and project managers to make sure that we make the right decision.”
[Leader 9]
Regarding who decides how teams are created or how they are changed over time, all twelve
leaders point out that it is mainly the line managers’ responsibility. The program- and the project
manager can point out for the line managers what the team needs in terms of how many persons
and what skills may be needed. One leader situated at the site in Kista states that, when the
responsible person is creating new teams, they try to make sure that the team does not have too
much virtual work and/or are not scattered on too many sites. What to bear in mind according to
several leaders positioned at the different sites, is that most of the virtual teams have been intact
for a while, especially those who work within programs. Another reason for not creating new teams
that often, is for the reason that leader does not want to break up teams that work well and have
been intact for a while.
When discussing the distribution of people across sites in virtual teams, all leaders but one agrees
on that it is best to not split up a team on different sites, if not necessary. Accordingly, almost all
leaders claim that it is better to have site-to-site and team-to-team work due to several reasons.
One of the reasons according to one leader with a program manager role, is that it is easy to forget
50
a site with few or one single employee. Having only one person off-site may include more
coordination efforts than it brings gain to the project.
Two leaders with the same leadership position, but situated at different sites, state the following:
“I believe that the distribution across sites matters. If there are many team members
together at one site, you can probably be more flexible, but if there is someone alone on
another site, then you probably need to define more clearly the responsibilities of that
person.” [Leader 12]
“If there is about 3-4 people in one place and 3-4 people in another place, you have to
start thinking about if it is not smarter to split the team into two and instead have two
independent teams.” [Leader 3]
Also, if having many people on one site, another program manager claims that it works better
because they can help each other easier by having uncomplicated and faster communication than
if placing one single person on a different site; especially if this person is new to work and has no
one to talk to. Preferably, one leader with a program manager role claims that for the team to work,
one should not split the team into more than two sites maximum. Another line manager claims that
if for example 90 % of the team is co-located and they have opportunities to do face to face
meetings and only one person is separated from the team, this person will have to work extra hard
to receive information. That person also needs to be more proactive when asking questions and
make sure to do video communication with the rest of the team, to feel equally involved in the
team. Another more experienced leader with a different role means that an additional effect of
splitting teams is that the team will face different boundaries and barriers, such as time differences
and cultural differences. Also, a leader with a line manager role believes that the strategy behind
the splitting of the team depends on what your goal is with the team. If one as a leader is looking
for the best balance and diversity in a team, another leader with a program manager position means
that when creating a team, one should try to have a good split of personalities on each site to have
a “fair presentation” of personalities. As that leader states:
“Diversity is quite the key. If you have all persons from one place and a single person from
another in a team, it is easy for the large group to take over the conversation. It is important
to have a good percentage on the diversity.” [Leader 4]
On the opposite, there is another leader, a line manager that believes it can be advantageous to
have only one person working virtually, as that person probably would feel fairly involved as
everyone else in the team would consider that person more. Also, this leader believes that if more
people are working virtually, it is more likely that they disappear in the crowd. A few leaders with
different leadership positions do not have an opinion concerning if there is an optimal way of
distributing teams across sites. This because these leaders have not experienced any specific
differences between different kinds of distributions. They also assume that the mindset of the team
member is what matters the most, including that all team members take on responsibility for
making everyone equally involved.
51
4.3.2 Leadership Characteristics
Several leaders with different positions situated at different sites, mean that it is important that the
leader sees everyone and listens to all members of the team. It is also vital to have a leader that
one feels that one always can talk to and that the talks do not always have to be work-related.
Everyone should be treated equally and helped to the same extent, no matter where they are
located. As some different line managers describe it:
“The ideal is to behave towards those who are on other sites, just as if they were sitting
on-site. It is equally important to talk to them as much, give them as much praise, call them
on Skype or video. You should be as present as if they were sitting where you can talk to
them directly. It is one of the most important lessons learned over the years. You should be
equally visible wherever they are.” [Leader 2]
“To keep track of those who are not visible and who may disappear even more in virtual
teams.” [Leader 3]
“A person that makes you feel like you were there. Creating the feeling of inclusiveness
even if you are working remote. A person that can build that, and someone that makes you
feel like the team is your home regardless of where you are located.” [Leader 9]
One leader with a project manager role means that an ideal virtual leader must have the right
knowledge to manage a virtual team because a virtual team means more factors to consider than a
co-located team. According to the leader, technical expertise and a genuine interest in people is
important. Concerning how directive an ideal virtual leader should be, the leader means that it
depends on the teams. However, this leader prefers to be less directive and describes it in this way:
“The best people aren’t those who manage people, it’s those who lead people. It’s those
who people are willing to follow, because they respect him or her, and they trust him or
her. That shepherd does not need a dog to bark at them, the relation is built on trust.”
[Leader 11]
Six leaders having different leadership roles bring up that everybody in a virtual team must be
getting heard, otherwise, it is difficult to get to know each team members’ capabilities and potential
and what they can contribute with to the team. To keep having conversations with everyone is
important, and what to bear in mind is that some people want to talk more often and others less,
some only face to face and some only by the use of ICT tools, those are things one must adapt to.
One leader having a line manager role expressed it as follows:
“Visibility and accessibility from my own side. That I make sure that there are as low walls
as possible in such a way that people dare come and ask me as a leader, even questions
they might think is stupid or dare to ask: Could we do this?” [Leader 3]
52
One leader in Kista propose that a leader can attend virtual meetings that the teams have to get a
perception of how things are going for the team, as well as monitor their progresses. To attend the
meetings also creates opportunities for the leader to virtually advice the whole team at the same
time on how things can be done differently, and in ways that can benefit the team. The same leader
further state that leaders may need to monitor the meetings so that the people who may dominate
the conversation are not the only persons being heard. The same leader claims that to make sure
that everyone gets their say, one can monitor who should talk by for example saying:
“I would really love to hear what X wants to say… “[Leader 11]
“Let me have you pause for a minute and hear what X has to say.” [Leader 11]
One project manager especially mentions that it is important to know how much the team members
are pushing themselves to know how much one as a leader should push them. Some people want
to be pushed more, but others are already pushing themselves too hard and those persons might
need actions that make them slow down their pace instead. To get knowledge concerning that is
according to the leader more difficult from remote. Working in virtual teams is not for everyone,
that is important to have in mind. A leader with another position states that persons who enjoy
working in virtual teams usually are good at teaching each other without much guidance.
4.3.3 Analysis: Coordination
In this section the analysis of the area coordination takes place, thus the theory is connected to the
empirical findings to answer the research question:
RQ2: How should virtual teams be coordinated and led to enable success?
The section is divided into: Role structure, Distribution of human resources, and Leadership
characteristics.
Role Structure
One leader having a project manager role states that it is difficult to take part in all that happens
when working remotely. Three leaders with different leadership roles at different sites, mean that
it is therefore difficult to measure success in a virtual team since one cannot supervise the team to
the same extent as one can with a co-located team. That is in line with what Pullan (2016), and
Eikenberry and Turmel (2018) state, that no leader can always monitor what is conducted, thus
according to Pullan (2016), autonomy in the teams is important. The empirical study reveals a
possible way of addressing that challenge, for example, to have local team leaders. That solution
is however not mentioned in the theory, although it fits some of the more general
recommendations. For example, it can be seen as a solution to the challenge that Edwards and
Wilson (2004) state concerning who is the best to give feedback and do performance monitoring
in virtual teams, as well as who should be the team sponsor. Hoch and Kozlowski (2014) claim
that leaders of virtual teams need more time and resources compared to leaders that conduct
leadership face to face, which can explain why some interviewed leaders find it difficult to be up
to date with everything that happens in their virtual teams. None of the interviewed leaders believes
that decisions in a team should be made by one single person, even though some consider hierarchy
necessary. That hierarchy to some extent is needed, is in line with what Heckman et al. (2007, as
53
cited in Miloslavic et al., 2015) present, that virtual teams need to practice a combination of shared
team leadership balanced with a heavily centralized leadership style to be successful. It is also in
line with what Miloslavic et al. (2015) state, that virtual teams can create benefits by allocating
routines and daily leadership tasks between team members whilst assign a designated leader that
is responsible for setting up activities.
Most of the leaders find it important to push the responsibilities further down in the hierarchy so
that the teams can make decisions on their own and feel more responsible for their work. That can
be explained with what DuFrene and Lehman (2016) claim, that successful virtual teams usually
are connected to distributed leadership. It can also be explained with what Hoch and Kozlowski
(2014) state, namely that as the level of virtuality increases, the weaker the relation between
hierarchical leadership and performance. Instead, structural support is more strongly related. One
program manager highlight that it easily becomes top management as the leaders try to control
everything instead of letting the teams make decisions and therefore causing problems as the teams
do not dare to make decisions on their own. This can be explained with what Pullan (2016) states,
that a command-and-control and domineering kind of leadership will in most cases not be
beneficial for virtual teams; that autonomy among the team members is important, and that view
is shared with the interviewed leaders. In section 4.1.2 Performance and Success, it can for
example be identified that four leaders from the sites in Sweden mean that it is the team members
themselves that set their deadlines and that a successful team also is a team that is good at
estimating their deadlines. That the team should take on more responsibility on their own according
to almost all leaders, is also in line with the theory of Hoch and Kozlowski (2014). They state that
the traditional hierarchical leadership structure does not fit virtual teams, as the minimized face to
face interaction impact, so that the behaviors of that kind of leadership cannot be applied suitably.
Instead, Hoch and Kozlowski (2014) state that shared team leadership with structural support is
beneficial and that it is important to support the leadership behaviors that are reduced by the cause
of distance, as well as differences in culture. The result of the study suggests that the appropriate
structure also can depend on the cultural background of the teams, as some cultures may not
understand the concepts of a rotated or shared leadership within the team. That is something that
the previous studies do not highlight. Further, the reason why the previously mentioned leaders
believe that pushing responsibilities down in the hierarchy can increase their feeling of
responsibility can be explained by what Pearce and Conger (2003, as cited in Miloslavic et al.,
2015) state. They mean that a shared team leadership supports the team members to build stronger
bonds with each other and creates an understanding of their strengths and weaknesses and a feeling
of being involved in the teams’ overall success.
Specifically, how the responsibilities within the team should be distributed varies in the leaders’
opinions. Some believe that each team member should be responsible for different parts while
others believe that shared responsibility is more effective, especially for decision making. The
reason for the divided opinions can be explained by Hollenbeck et al.’s (2002, as cited in
Miloslavic et al., 2015) and Moon et al.’s (2004, as cited in Miloslavic et al., 2015) theory, that
different kind of role structures are more appropriate depending on for example predictability and
interdependence. That some leaders state it to work better with clearly separated tasks and areas
of responsibility, can perhaps be explained with that the environment of those teams is more
54
predictable and stable, thus a functional role structure is more suitable as Hollenbeck et al. (2002,
as cited in Miloslavic et al., 2015) and Moon et al. (2004 as cited in Miloslavic et al., 2015) explain.
On the contrary, the interviewed leaders who state that a shared leadership is beneficial might work
in an environment where changes are constantly happening, meaning that the environment is less
stable. If that is the case, the reason for why the leaders prefer a shared leadership can be explained
with the theories of Hollenbeck et al. (2002, as cited in Miloslavic et al., 2015) and Moon et al.
(2004 as cited in Miloslavic et al., 2015), explaining that a divisional role structure is beneficial in
more unstable environments.
To clearly define the role structure and to ensure that the teams are aware of why each role is
important, is stated as necessary by several of the interviewed leaders. This can be explained with
Zander et al.’s (2013) statement that it is important at an early stage in the team formation to define
the tasks, who should do what, as well as the expectations. This, since it increases the feeling of
bringing value to the team, it enhances commitment and knowledge sharing. Zander et al. (2013)
also highlight that the leaders must define where areas of expertise are in the virtual teams and
how it impacts the role of the team members. It can also be explained with what Miloslavic et al.
(2015) claim, that it is important to reduce the confusion about roles as much as possible by clearly
communicating the intended role structure. This is also brought up by the interviewed leaders from
the perspective that having a rotating leadership may not be optimal, as that can confuse the team
members. As Katz and Kahn (1978, as cited in Miloslavic et al., 2015) state, confusions about the
roles are related to that weak and unclear expectations are set on the teams, thus decreasing the
level of performance. Further, if team members have multiple roles in their virtual team, it is
according to Bell and Kozlowski (2002, as cited in Miloslavic et al., 2015) likely that there are
conflicts and confusion concerning the role structure, which also explain why the interviewed
leaders do not find a rotating leadership as an optimal solution. The empirical findings suggest that
to rotate the leadership can be used to increase awareness concerning the importance of roles, but
not all the time. One leader mentions that the reason is that the team members need to have a leader
that knows them, a person that one has personal contact with, and can build trust to. The connection
to why a rotated leadership may not be appropriate is not directly supported in the theory. However,
as the theory emphasizes the importance of building trust between the leader and the team members
in general, it strengthens the suggestion of only using a rotated leadership when one wants to create
awareness of the importance of a role. Clearly, both the theory and the empirical findings suggest
that defining the roles of the team members is important no matter how the role structure looks
like.
As mentioned in section 4.1.1 Why Virtual Teams? all interviewed leaders find that one of the
major benefits with virtual teams is that the labor pool expands. Edwards and Wilson (2004)
mention how this can create challenges, for example, there is no guarantee that the utilization rate
of the labor pool is increased even though the pool is expanded. There is a risk that the team leader
might only choose or recommend individuals who they are familiar with (thus not necessarily the
best person suited), consequently, having an impact on both the role structure and the performance
of the team. This is totally in line with what one of the leaders with a project manager role explains,
that sometimes when a team needs to be put together very fast, the managers chose people who
they are already familiar with. Thus, the empirical study contributes to previous results by showing
55
that the best person for the job may not be chosen even though the labor pool is expanded as
Edwards and Wilson (2004) implicate. When forming a virtual team, choosing the right team
members have been mentioned by all interviewed leaders as important, both concerning their
competencies, (as the reason for why virtual teams are created usually is due to a need of
competencies as presented in section 4.1.1 Why Virtual Teams?) but also that they are willing to
work in this kind of teams. This can be explained with what Zander et al. (2013) state, that
motivation is an important factor to consider when forming the team, the chosen persons should
be motivated to engage in the work and not unwilling to cooperate.
Distribution of Human Resources
According to one of the leaders having a program manager role, the most common size of teams
is around eight to ten people, a decision stated to be based on guidelines from agile methods. Since
the teams that the interviewed leaders are responsible for are not newly formed, that is in line with
the recommendation from Edwards and Wilson (2004) who recommend that a newly formed
virtual team should consist of maximum eight people, but that virtual teams in general can consist
of up to 20 people. The recommended distribution of people across different sites is not clearly
defined in the theory. However, some more general perspectives in theories can be identified in
the empirical findings. For example, Edwards and Wilson (2004) state that the number of
organizations included should be limited to one at first for newly formed teams and that it later
can be expanded to three organizations in more experienced teams. This can be connected to that
the leaders do not want to include several sites in one team, if it is not necessary. Instead they try
to make sure that the team is not too scattered. Several leaders with different leadership positions
also highlight that diversity is important and that can be explained by the statement of Edwards
and Wilson (2004), that the reason for including more organizations is to assure that the team has
the best abilities to respond to challenges as a result of a higher level of diversity and more
resources. Concerning how the distribution of human resources should be across different sites,
the result of the study suggests some different theories and that the best distribution may depend
on the goal. For example, if diversity is a goal, then to have a fair representation of personalities
at each site is considered important. Most of the interviewed leaders find it beneficial to have a
larger number of team members at each site as that means that they can help one another and have
effective communication. The perception of how it works when one person is working alone at a
site differs. One line manager finds it advantageous as that person will be considered more and
feel more fairly involved. Another program manager claims the opposite, that having few or one
team member at one site makes it easier to forget them and that it may include more coordination
work than it brings value. A third leader also with a line manager position claims that, if 90 % of
the team is co-located and can meet face to face, the person working alone at a site must work
more proactively to receive the right information.
Leadership Characteristics
This part of the study is not clearly addressed in the theory, therefore the connections between
theory and the empirical findings are not always as clear as in the other parts. However, the
empirical findings imply that leadership characteristics are important. A clear majority of the
leaders (including leaders from all sites) agree that to be able to see and listen to everyone and be
56
there not only from a work perspective but to be someone that the team members can talk to, is
important. As mentioned in section 4.1.2 Performance and Success, being able to listen to other
team members’ feedback is another way besides using performance measurement tools for the
leaders to measure performance and how successful their virtual teams are. Further, several leaders
with different roles and situated at different sites claim that treating everyone equally, no matter if
the person is working from remote or not is also important to be able to have a successful team.
That those characteristics are important can be strengthened by what Kayworth and Leidner (2002)
state, namely that highly efficient leaders of virtual teams show a high degree of empathy and
understanding to the team members. Kayworth and Leidner (2002) also claim that an effective
leader takes on a mentoring role and can manage to enforce authority, without seeming inflexible
or imperious, as well as he/she is talented at handing out responsibilities. This can explain why
some leaders (in this case a project manager), find it beneficial to be less directive and instead be
a leader that is equally helpful to everyone and a leader that the team wants to follow. To utilize
the team members’ potential is mentioned as more challenging by some leaders (from all three
sites, with different leadership roles) when comparing virtual teams with co-located teams. That
they find it important to exploit the team members’ potential can be reflected in Malhotra et al.’s
(2007) statement, that leaders of virtual teams must make sure that unique knowledge of the team
members is utilized. DuFrene and Lehman (2016) bring up the importance of leveraging team
talent with a focus on their competencies, which further motivates why the interviewed leaders
find it important. How it should be accomplished is less discussed in the theory. The interviewed
leaders, on the other hand, bring up some actions. For example, the result of the study underlines
the importance of making sure that everyone is heard, otherwise it is difficult to know their
capabilities and potential. To make sure to communicate one-on-one, and to show that one is
present, are other things the leaders mention. To know the team members, how they push
themselves, how much they want to be pushed, and their preferred working styles, are also stated
to impact the possibility to utilize everyone’s potential.
Summarization Analysis Coordination
A lot of the empirical findings in the study concerning the role structure of virtual teams contribute
to previous studies by showing that the results are in accordance. However, the study reveals a
more precise way of addressing the challenge of not being able to stay up to date and deciding the
best person to conduct, for example, performance monitoring, namely, to have a local team leader.
In both the theory and in the empirical findings, it is clear that traditional hierarchical leadership
rarely is beneficial in virtual teams. Thus, pushing the responsibilities down in the hierarchy
creates a more efficient structure for leadership in virtual teams. More specifically how the
responsibilities should be divided is however less clear, but it appears that the most appropriate
structure can depend on the interdependence level of the tasks that the teams perform. This study
also contributes to a perspective that the theory does not highlight, but to some extent support,
meaning that the cultural background can impact what structure is most appropriate. Further, the
study presents reasons for why a rotating leadership might not be suitable in virtual teams by
highlighting the importance of having a leader that one can get to know and build trust to, which
the theory does not address.
57
The distribution of human resources across the sites is not well defined in theory, and the empirical
findings in this study do not indicate that there is an optimal solution that suits all virtual teams.
However, some general perspectives in the theory confirm that the empirical findings are to some
extent in line with the theory concerning the number of team members in team, as well as that it
may not always be beneficial to distribute the team across several locations.
As mentioned, leadership characteristics are not clearly addressed in the theory, but since this study
implicates that this is important to consider, the analysis brings up some findings that are supported
in theory at a more general perspective. Some examples are that leaders of virtual teams should be
equally helpful to the team members, be talented in distributing responsibilities, make sure that
everyone is getting heard, and be someone that the team wants to follow.
4.4 Location
This section presents the empirical findings within the area location. The section is divided into:
Different time zones, cultures and languages, which is followed by an analysis of each part
separately.
4.4.1 Different Time Zones, Cultures and Languages
Different cultures and different languages create challenges according to all twelve interviewed
leaders. Where there are greater differences in culture, there are bigger challenges in getting good
functioning teams as one must think about what their culture is like, claims one experienced leader
situated in Kista. The culture is stated to impact the work ethic and work-culture, which can create
challenges as one does not understand the other while trying to work towards a common goal. The
work culture is also mentioned as a challenge by another leader (also situated in Kista but with
another leadership position) from the perspective that it is difficult to know how much to challenge
the team. Another leader situated in Austin claims that people in some cultures tend to like
challenges more than others and if they are not challenged enough, that might under-stimulate
them and decrease their commitment. This leader states an example of this when comparing the
culture in Sweden with the culture in the US. In Sweden, work-life balance is highly important
and 40-hour working weeks are common. This, unlike the US work culture, where it is common
to work more, and it is expected that one should. A program manager states that culture also
impacts the view of a leader and how one as a team member prefers to be led or coached. For
instance, some team members prefer getting clear instructions and some team members just need
a direction and then they follow their path. That is considered as a big challenge. Some people
want to have a directive leadership, and some prefer to just have a supportive one, which is stated
to have a connection to the person’s culture. The same leader, with support from other leaders,
states that diversity, culture, and different sites are considered being a great challenge of having
virtual teams. An example that a project manager brings up, is that in more individualistic cultures
one is expected to have an opinion if attending a meeting. If one does not have an opinion, there
is no reason to be at the meeting. On the contrary, some cultures are much more team-focused and
hierarchical, where one can only express themselves if everyone agrees, means the same leader.
58
Another program manager states:
“When the team members do not understand the difference in culture, that is negative for
the team, but once one begins to understand the difference, then it can be positive.”
[Leader 5]
Several leaders at different leadership positions claim that when team members are located at
different places, it can be difficult to feel involved in the day to day tasks and to manage follow-
ups. This, partly because it can be hard to understand if the team members understood what was
said or not. One experienced leader situated in Kista, claims that the response is also depending on
the culture, in some cultures, one would never say that one does not understand, one just says yes
to everything. Therefore, to make sure that the team members do understand is a big challenge
according to the leaders. The same leader claims that to understand each other is a difficulty, as a
lot of people do not communicate in their first language. Furthermore, there are different dialects,
some speak too fast or too slow etcetera, which creates language barriers that can cause a lot of
misunderstandings. Several leaders having different leadership roles claim that, virtual teams
introduce cultural distinctions that one as a team member must be aware of and must adapt to.
Some adapt more slowly than others which can cause conflicts. Different cultures address people
differently, something that is normal in some cultures can be offensive in other cultures. One line
manager states:
“If you are not aware of cultural distinctions, you can risk being hurt yourself and hurting
your colleagues without even knowing it.” [Leader 12]
All interviewed leaders point out that even though diversity is a challenge, it is important to
recognize the value of diversity in teams, to have humor and fun, to build relationships with respect
and care. Several leaders from different sites, with different leadership positions claim that a team’s
ability to adapt to different cultures affect how successful they are in their team efforts.
One thing that the same leaders mention as a part of the solution to the barriers that different
cultures and languages contribute to, is to try to meet in person. After meeting the person,
understanding them becomes easier because one gets to see their facial expressions, and the
cooperation begins to work more efficiently as well, as mentioned earlier. One project manager
took a course in cultural awareness and cultural/gender distinctions with initiative from Ericsson.
The course gave knowledge about how those cause different conclusions in different cultures.
Overall the course gave a perspective on why a person is thinking in a certain way that does not
make sense for oneself, and that knowledge helped a lot to understand the cultural distinctions.
One solution to avoid miscommunication as a result of the language barriers is according to one
leader, situated at the site in Lund, to take more notes during meetings, thus formalize them so that
it gets written down. This action is highly recommended by one of the leaders, as it made one of
his/her projects that included cultural differences and language difficulties work so well that the
other site stated the project as the best that they had ever been involved in. The reason was
according to the leader that they could understand each other properly and felt involved as a lot of
information was shared not only verbally, but in the form of e-mails.
59
Almost all interviewed leaders mention that working across different time zones includes some
practical challenges as for example, putting restrictions on what hours real-time communication is
possible. The more time zones that are working together, the harder it gets to cooperate effectively.
Two leaders both with line manager roles state the following:
“It gets really hard because our calendars are always busy. Therefore, it can be difficult
to find a time that suits everyone. You do not have 8-9 working hours, instead there might
be 2-3 hours that overlap and there is where you must find time for meetings. Or you have
to force someone to work at unpleasant working hours.” [Leader 9]
“Some teams are placed in both India and the US and for them it is quite impossible to find
a common time that suits all, which I know is very tough for them.” [Leader 2]
However, several leaders situated at all three sites, having different leadership positions, mean that
virtual teams enable the company to be active 24 hours a day. Meaning that the different time
zones enable one to hand over a task to another team and then take it on again the next day. Several
leaders with similar leadership positions, but who are situated at different sites, state that it is about
agreeing on a time that works. A solution presented by one of those leaders is to set up periodical
meetings instead of trying to agree a few days on forehand. This as there are more gaps in the
schedules when looking more ahead, thus, to set a time and then block it for the upcoming weeks,
is one way of solving it. Another leader situated in Austin claims that one must create restrictions
on what hours of the day it is possible to work together. Further, the same leader claims that what
matters the most is not the time when working together is possible, but the hours that one cannot
work together. For example, if a question emerges in the middle of the day, there is a risk that one
cannot get an answer to it until the day after due to the time difference. The same leader states that
when one does not get an answer there is a risk that one goes and asks other persons and starts to
build one’s own perceptions that may not correspond to the reality; that is also a challenge. Another
leader with a line manager role means that location and therefore time difference, should not matter
if the arrangements have been done thoughtfully. As the mentioned leader describes it:
“I want to believe that if we make the right arrangements it does not matter where we are
from and where we are located. As long as everyone knows what they are doing the
challenges with time difference is manageable, and possible to get around to make the most
out of it.” [Leader 9]
When asking one line manager about the optimal time overlap, he/she means that it depends on
what one is trying to optimize, but if the sites are in the same time zones, that is great since it
allows for stronger collaboration and opportunities for more meetings. Another leader with the
same leadership position, claims that, in his/her experience, virtual teams should be spread at a
maximum of two different time zones.
60
4.4.2 Analysis: Location
In this section the analysis of the area location takes place, thus the empirical findings are
connected to the theory to answer the research question:
RQ3: How to handle challenges in terms of location that affect the performance of virtual
teams?
The section is divided into: Culture, Different time zones and Languages.
Culture
To be aware of how different cultures are and how it impacts work-ethic and work-culture is
important to get functioning teams, claims one of the more experienced leaders. Several leaders
from different sites having different leadership positions, also state that a team’s ability to adapt
to different cultures affect how successful their teams’ effort is. That is a perspective that the theory
does not bring up. However, the reason behind it is that, if one does not understand foreign
perspectives from foreign cultures, that can cause misunderstandings, thus make it difficult to work
towards a common goal, Thus, from a more general perspective, that is in line with what Zander
et al. (2013) describe. Continuing, Zander et al. (2013) state that people tend to communicate more
with groups that are similar to their own, thus it can explain why several leaders find it important
to understand how culture impacts. This can also be explained with what Lee-Kelley and Sankey
(2008) imply, that the team members should be chosen carefully, being culturally aware, and
showing empathy. This study suggests that the ability to adapt to culture impacts how successful
a virtual team is. That can be strengthened with what Miloslavic et al. (2015) emphasize, that it is
important to have culture in consideration when making sure that the team is a good match from
the perspective of norms, values, and the structure. It is especially important for the constructions
of teamwork attitudes, like for example trust (Suffler, DiazGranados & Salas, 2011, as cited in
Miloslavic et al., 2015). This is in line with what Zander et al. (2013) claim, that how trust is built
can vary from one culture to another and that negotiations between different cultures is a big
challenge with virtual teams. As several of the interviewed leaders highlight that different work-
culture is a challenge that they face, that indicates that awareness of the impact of culture may be
beneficial to consider when putting together teams. Challenges in dealing with different work-
cultures are stated to be difficult according to one leader positioned at the site in Kista, meaning,
to know how much to challenge everyone as some cultures want to be challenged more than others.
This is strengthened by Zander et al. (2013), that claim that different cultural backgrounds impact
what kind of leadership individuals prefer. Zander et al. (2013) also mean that there are significant
differences in preferences on how the leader should give feedback, coach, and communicate with
individuals. A concrete example of this mentioned by a leader situated in Austin is the difference
in work culture between Sweden and the US. In Sweden, a work-life balance is important as well
as it is expected and realized by people, while in the US one is expected to work more and generally
like to take on more challenges. This is also in line with what Edwards and Wilson (2004) claim,
meaning that how a leader should motivate team members is connected to the cultural background
of team members and additionally, the leader’s preferences itself. Thus, the study contributes to
previous results by showing that awareness of work cultures is important when leading virtual
teams.
61
Further, Lee-Kelley and Sankey (2008) state that including at least one team member that has
previous experience of working in virtual teams is beneficial, as that person can help others to
overcome barriers. This goes in line with the leader’s statement about creating awareness and
having experience, which is important for the teams to be successful. Malhotra et al. (2007) entitle
that leaders should ensure that diversity is not only understood but also accepted and valued among
the team members, something that all the interviewed leaders highlight as important as well, in
order to recognize the value of diversity in teams. Thus, the result of the empirical findings
confirms that diversity in teams brings value, as the theory presents. The detailed explanation that
one leader presents, meaning that having the team scattered around the globe brings benefits of
being exposed to other cultures, to other ways of solving problems, to people that went to other
colleges or universities, and thus have a different mindset which impacts the way of working.
However, this is not brought up in previous studies. Avolio and Kahai (2003) state that diversity
among teams can make it more desirable for leaders to improve the sense of cohesion and that it
can be accomplished by focusing on the similarities rather than differences among the team
members, which may contribute to why the interviewed leaders find cohesion and trust so
important (as presented earlier).
According to one leader situated at the site in Kista, the team members responding to information
also depends on culture. In some cultures, people would never say that they do not understand
something, but rather says yes to everything. This can be explained by what Zander et al. (2013)
state, that a considerable problem with cultural differences is that something can be taken for
granted by someone and at the same time be unrecognized by others. Thus, that the leaders find
cultural awareness as important is motivated, as otherwise, one would assume that all is
understood. Cultural differences can also result in different interpretations of what is written
between the lines, thus different sites and individuals may prioritize goals that in the long run are
beneficial for them instead of the goals of the project, state Zander et al. (2013). Further, Zander
et al. (2013) claim that goal alignment is a prominent challenge due to this and as the local context
can impact in ways making the goals less aligned. Working with goal alignment is something that
the leaders emphasize during the interviews (as mentioned earlier) and can be explained as a result
of this.
Different Time Zones
Why almost all leaders experience problems when having teams located at different sites in
different time zones, can be explained by theories of both Edwards and Wilson (2004) and Kraut
and Streeter (1995, as cited in Espinosa et al., 2004). According to these theories, different time
zones create restrictions on real-time communication and how to define core working hours. To
find a solution to this problem, one leader with a line manager position recommends that teams
should be spread at a maximum of two different time zones. This is to some extent in line with
Edwards and Wilson’s (2004) statement, that one should not have sites that differ more than two
hours. Though, it is argued that this applies to teams that are less mature. More mature teams can
take advantage of the time differences by using communication technologies that enable them to
work 24 hours a day, as a result of having sites in different time zones. This is in line with what
several leaders from different sites, having different leadership positions claim, namely that virtual
62
teams make it possible for Ericsson to be active 24 hours a day, and that different time zones enable
employees to hand over a task to another team and then take it on again the next day. Miloslavic
et al. (2015) mean that what one can do when having problems with different time zones, is to
“share the load” by rotating the meeting agenda in such a way that it is not always the same people
or person who is forced to either work late or get to work uncomfortably early. Malhotra et al.
(2007) mean that the leader should arrange an equal level of “sacrifice” among team members in
the virtual dispersed team. However, there is no evidence that the interviewed leaders rotate the
agenda fairly so that all involved sites are satisfied with their working hours. Instead, one leader’s
(a line manager’s) solution that is brought up, is to set up periodical meetings instead of trying to
agree a few days on the forehand, since there are more gaps in the schedules when looking further
ahead. The reason for why the leaders want to set up these meetings can be explained with what
Carmel (2006) state, that one element to overcome the challenges of working across different time
zones is by having formal weekly meetings and status reporting. Something else that Carmel
(2006) highlights, is that the schedule should be designed so that the project can withstand some
time delays, in a similar way to how risks are accounted for. This can explain why several leaders
prefer not to spread the team across several sites and time zones, as it indicates that more delays
may occur. One project manager also states in section 4.2.2 Information Communication
Technology Tools that communication though ICT tools tends to increase delays compared to
communication taking place face to face.
According to one line manager, the optimal time overlap depends on what one is trying to optimize.
That is in line with the theory of Espinosa et al. (2007), which says that managers have to evaluate
when deciding the geographical distribution due to how it impacts the accuracy and speed of the
project’s outcome. The chosen distribution should, therefore, depend on the goal. However, one
line manager’s statement saying that it is favorably to have all sites in the same time zone can be
explained by what Edwards and Wilsons’s (2004) claim, that collaboration across different time
zones puts restrictions on real-time communication, and that is seen as a challenge. The leader’s
opinion can also be explained by Espinosa et al.’s (2004) study. It shows that when having less or
no time overlap, the accuracy in the execution of the task decrease as it is assumed to be a result
of not being able to communicate in real-time, which increases the risk of misunderstandings.
Moreover, that leaders prefer having all sites in the same time zone can be explained by the result
from Espinosa et al.’s (2007) study, which shows that a full-time overlap gave a relatively high
working speed. The study of Espinosa et al. (2007) showed that when there was no overlap, the
speed increased to an even higher level than when having full-time overlap. This observation can
explain the interviewed leader’s statement that an optimal overlap depends on the optimization
goals. Also, it is clarified by what Edward and Wilson (2004) mentioned earlier, that more mature
teams can take advantage of having sites in different time zones by using communication
technologies that enable them to work 24 hours a day. That almost all leaders find it frustrating to
work across time zones, can be in line with what Espinosa et al. (2007) claim, that the feeling of
frustration does not always correspond to the outcome of the work. It might bring more benefits
than what the leaders perceive.
63
Languages
It is explained by one more experienced leader in Kista that the reason why it can be difficult to
understand each other is partly because a lot of people do not communicate in their first language.
That can be explained by what Edwards and Wilson (2004) emphasize, concerning the importance
of having an operative language. This, so that the focus is on what is communicated rather than
trying to understand what is said. That is not always the case according to the same leader, as
dialects where some speak too fast and others too slow, makes the understanding even more
difficult. The same leader points out that language barriers can result in miscommunications and
misunderstandings, which is following Edwards and Wilson’s (2004) and Zander et al.’s (2013)
theories. They claim that cultural barriers may be amplified using communication via
technological solutions, that it can lead to misunderstandings, and that cultural differences may be
intensified or silently downplayed as a result of digital communication. Edwards and Wilson
(2004) mention that as the technology behind video conferencing advances, these kinds of risks
may be minimized. This can explain why several leaders prefer using video during meetings (as
mentioned earlier). The use of video enables sharing facial expressions; thus, it can decrease the
level of miscommunication. One leader situated at the site in Lund suggests a solution to the
challenge with misunderstandings that have worked for him/her, that is to formalize meetings more
by taking notes. With this, the leader is referring to the fact that if someone who attended the
meeting did not understand everything that was said, one could take part in the content in written
form instead afterward. That perspective is not brought up in previous studies but can from a
general perspective be motivated by Malhotra et al.’s (2007) theory, saying that documentation of
what is said at meetings is important.
Summarization Analysis Location
When analyzing the impact of culture, most of the empirical findings are in line with the theory,
thus confirming previous findings that state that cultural awareness is important in virtual teams.
That includes, for example, an understanding of how culture impacts how things are perceived.
However, this study contributes to a new perspective concerning how different cultures impact,
namely that a person’s ability to adapt to other cultures affect how successful the team’s effort is.
This is supported by theory even though the suggestion is not clearly defined in previous studies.
Further, the result of the study contributes to previous results by confirming that diversity brings
value. However, the result of this study suggests a more detailed explanation of why it is valuable,
including that different backgrounds, bring value in the form of diversity in mindsets, problem-
solving, and ways of working.
Concerning how leaders should address the challenge with working across different time zones,
the findings of the study mainly confirm the theory. To work across time zones enable companies
to be active 24 hours a day, but it can be challenging for the teams as real-time communication is
restricted. The previous studies as well as this study confirm that the optimal time overlap can
depend on what one wants to optimize.
The result of the study contributes to the previous result by confirming that an operative language
that all people master, is of importance. Further, that communication via ICT tools may increase
64
the language barriers as the theory implicate, can be seen as strengthened as video conversations
according to this study, minimize language barriers, meaning that communication, which is
perceived more like face to face communication, decreases misunderstandings. Moreover, the
result of the study suggests a new way of addressing language barriers, meaning that putting what
is said at meetings in writing, can decrease language barriers further.
65
5 Conclusions This chapter presents the concluding remarks that this study resulted in based on the empirical
findings and the analysis.
The purpose of this master thesis project is as mentioned to identify what leaders of virtual teams
should work with to lead their teams to success, with the current preconditions. To fulfill this
purpose, three research questions were developed with a focus on the areas: communication,
coordination, and location based on the literature study. These areas, their respective research
question, and the answers to them are consequently presented below.
5.1 Conclusion: Communication
RQ1: What type of communication is essential for virtual teams to work effectively?
What can be concluded is that even if one works virtually and communicate mostly via ICT tools,
face to face communication is important to build trust and cohesion. Thus, the leader and the team
members should meet face to face if possible. That is especially important in the beginning when
the team is newly formed, but it can also be important later when more complex challenges emerge.
This, because meeting face to face is shown to easier the overcoming of obstacles, as well as
making communication through ICT tools more efficient after having met face to face, as this
study suggests.
Looking at the leader’s responsibility, the leader should focus on relationship building within the
team, as well as creating trust and commitment among the team by for example showing honesty
and transparency towards them. To encourage the team members to share information about
themselves also enhance the building of relationships, trust and cohesion, as well as it makes it
possible to avoid the feeling of isolation. Trust is not only built by the use of words but actions,
meaning that leaders must show that they care about their team members, listen to them and aim
to help them develop in their wanted direction, rather than the leader’s. When working in virtual
teams the leaders must communicate clearly and understandably. To enable that, the leader must
assure that what is communicated is understood correctly, which also is a challenge. That challenge
can be addressed in several ways. One action to ensure that what is said during meetings, that is
identified in this study, is to rotate which site that is taking notes. It is further suggested that another
site than the one responsible for the meeting, can be responsible for taking notes. That enables
direct feedback and can create awareness if things are not perceived correctly. It can also be
concluded from the theory as well as in this study, that using different kinds of ICT tools is
necessary when communicating in virtual teams. It is vital to set the means for communication
together in the team, both concerning what to use and for what purpose. As this study implies, it
is important to give directions for frequency as well as setting time limits on when to respond.
More specifically, with the purpose of building trust, the leader should use one-on-one
communications, thus, sending for example an e-mail to a large number of people is not suitable.
To have different tools that enable knowledge sharing and direct feedback is important. Further,
the usage of video can be concluded as important both by theories and even more by the results of
this study. Video is important especially as it enables the sharing of non-verbal cues such as facial
expressions, to make the distance feel less palpable and for increasing understanding. There is no
66
specific frequency in communication that suits all. Therefore, the leader should help the team to
find a solution that works for them. It is recommended though to communicate more often than if
the team would have been co-located. The leader should also make sure that everyone in the team
is comfortable with the tools being used, and that some kind of education for the leader as well as
the team, is beneficial.
To enable high-performance as well as efficiency in a team, it is also concluded that working with
goal alignment is important. Thus, leaders of virtual teams must make sure to communicate the
goals in a way that ensures that all team members interpret them similarly. Moreover, the leader
should make sure to clarify how the teams bring value, looking at the bigger picture to boost
collaboration and coordination.
5.2 Conclusion: Coordination
RQ2: How should virtual teams be coordinated and led to enable success?
Taking part in everything that happens in a virtual team is more challenging than in a regular co-
located team. There are different solutions to how that challenge can be handled, but what most of
the leaders as well as theory state, is that pushing down the responsibilities in the hierarchy is a
more effective structure to enable success within the team. These leaders mean that more
responsibilities for the team members, as well as a shared leadership style, make the team members
feel responsible for the team performance, which can increase their motivation to perform and
bring value, as well as the cohesion within the group. More specifically, how the responsibility
should be coordinated among the team members seems to vary depending on the interdependence
and complexity of the tasks. In some cases, more clearly separated tasks and responsibilities have
turned out to be more beneficial and in other cases, the other way around. Thus, the leader should
adapt how the responsibilities within the team are distributed depending on the interdependence
level and the team’s preferred way of working. Making the teams as autonomous as possible (while
keeping some kind of hierarchal structure), give them structural support, making sure to listen to
their needs and wishes, are all important actions to lead the team to success. Further, the result of
this study suggests that delegating some responsibility to local team leaders is a strategy that has
turned out to be effective.
Both the theory and the empirical findings conclude that the leader must define the roles of the
team members, as uncertainty concerning the roles harms the team’s performance. Further, to
make sure that all team members understand the value of each role and who has expertise
concerning what is important. This since it can enhance the team’s ability to become more self-
driven and autonomous. Concerning how team members should be distributed, it is clear that the
leaders’ opinion, is that the team members should be co-located to the extent possible. When that
is not possible due to for example a need for competencies, it does not seem like there is an optimal
distribution. However, what can be concluded is that it is important that the people working remote
when other team members are co-located, need to feel equally included in the team even though
they are positioned elsewhere. Thus, a conclusion to be stated is that depending on the specific
team and their way of working, it can work effectively to have one person alone at one site, when
in other situations an equal distribution works more effectively. This study contributes to highlight
that it is important that the team members who work in virtual teams should have the right
67
motivation and enjoy the virtual way of working, no matter how the team is spread at different
sites.
5.3 Conclusion: Location
RQ3: How is it possible to handle challenges in terms of location that affect the
performance of virtual teams?
Considering the factors regarding the location that may affect virtual teams, it can be concluded
that cultural challenges, time differences and language barriers are the main challenges.
Different cultures in a virtual team is a big challenge according to both theory and leaders at
Ericsson. To handle cultural differences, it is important to be aware of the differences, and how
they impact in general, especially when setting up a new team. Cultural differences can affect
communication in a virtual team, for example by causing different interpretations of what is written
in between the lines. The leader should choose team members carefully and consider those who
are cultural aware, and more specifically as this study’s result show, those who can adapt to the
team culture effectively, but also those who has an empathic ability. Different cultures also
implicate different work cultures, which is something that leaders need to be aware of to know
how much they for example should challenge their team members for them to keep feeling
motivated, but also how they should give feedback, coach and communicate with individuals in
the team. An outcome from theory and empirical findings is that the leader needs to recognize the
value of diversity among team members and make the team members recognize the value as well.
If leading a diverse team that needs to improve the cohesion within the team, the leader should
focus on the similarities in the group instead of the differences. Further, to make the team members
appreciate the diversity in teams more the leader can increase the awareness concerning the
benefits that diversity brings, such as how it enables better decision making and more effective
ways to respond to challenges.
What can be concluded concerning different time zones is that collaboration between different
time zones restricts real-time communication. When talking about an optimal overlap in time
zones, it can be identified that it depends on what one wants to optimize and that leaders need to
evaluate the situation when making decisions about geographical distribution regarding how it can
impact the accuracy and speed. What also can be recognized is that having a full-time overlap
creates a high speed in work, thus having sites within the same time zone is favorable. On the other
hand, it can also be identified that when having no overlap in time collaboration between sites, the
speed was increased likewise, which again points out that which overlap is optimal for which team,
depends on what one wants to get out of the team. Different time zones can also be advantageous
because a company can then in practice be active 24 hours a day, however, the theory suggests
that this only applies to teams that have a history of cooperating virtually.
Regarding different languages within a virtual team, it can be identified that language barriers can
lead to both misunderstandings and miscommunication. To get around this, it is important to have
an operating language that is widely known in such a way that members can focus on what is
communicated and not how it is communicated. Also, cultural differences can be amplified using
ICT tools since it could lead to more things being misunderstood. To minimize these
68
misunderstandings, it is both preferred as well as it is recommended by leaders, to use video
communication where one can see facial expressions for example. Additionally, the result of the
study suggests that documenting what is said at meetings is an action that can minimize the
language barriers further.
69
6 Discussion In this part, a discussion that contributes to new perspectives on the research questions is
presented, thus widening the viewpoint. The discussion contributes to some of the
recommendations presented in section 7.1 Recommendations.
The leaders’ view concerning if they receive guidelines from Ericsson on how to lead virtual teams
or not, is divided. This indicates that the guidelines provided may not be clear enough. Since one
third of the interviewed leaders consider themselves lacking educational training for leadership in
virtual teams, this is something that Ericsson could look deeper into, to identify what type of
education that is needed. It may also be appropriate for the team members to receive some
education in virtual teams, with the aim to more easily understand the conditions for working in a
virtual team, or to be more culturally aware for example. Those are also suggestions that were
brought up by leaders during the interviews. Thus, that there are no mandatory courses to attend
can be questioned. This is because it is important that the leaders receive guidelines and whether
the guidelines focus on the “right” issues, are of great importance. Guidelines create a basis for
how virtual work function as a whole, and how it impacts all three areas, communication,
coordination, and location. As mentioned earlier, it is the leader’s responsibility to make sure that
communication works, as well as it is the leader’s responsibility to together with the teams set up
ground rules for how ICT tools should be used. It is also the leaders who create the teams, which
means that they are responsible for how teams are allocated at different locations. This means that
a lack of knowledge about how factors, such as time difference and cultural influence can impair
the team’s performance. It can also create situations where teams are not put together in a way that
creates the right conditions for the purpose. The same goes for coordination, the leaders are
responsible for the distribution of human resources since they (at Ericsson, mostly the line
managers) are responsible for recruiting. Further, the leaders have the power to delegate
responsibilities and empower their team members, which affects the role structure.
Also, the structure of how one as a leader gets the opportunity to attend educational programs can
be questioned since this apparently impact the prerequisites for a well functional virtual leadership.
Currently, it seems like some educational programs are only accessible if a leader is nominated by
its manager. That means that whether one gets the training one need or not may depend on who
one’s manager is, and that might not be the optimal solution. Since the leaders do not need to
attend any specific educational programs at Ericsson, the leaders are asked if they work with
developing their leadership abilities for virtual teams by own initiative and if so, how they do it.
All interviewed leaders agree, that as a leader one can never be fully educated and that one’s
leadership skills always can be improved. There is, however, no clear pattern in how the
interviewed leaders work with developing their leadership skills. Their approaches are generally
to read about virtual leadership, ask for help from more experienced virtual leaders, as well as
reflect on their work to improve it. Also, something worth discussing is how trustworthy the
material that the leaders find on their own is, and how updated it is, or, how much these insights
can be used in their daily work? Nevertheless, it may not suit the way they need to conduct their
work at Ericsson, or to the virtual challenges that leaders at Ericsson face. The concept of virtual
teams is something that is constantly updated in line with advancements in technology, which
70
creates a difficulty for the leaders to always keep up to date. As this study suggests that the
knowledge that the leaders possess impact how well the concept of virtual teams work within the
company from several point of views, it can be discussed whether the learnings that the leaders
collect on their own is enough from a wider perspective. More specifically, if the self-obtained
knowledge collected by own initiative is enough to the extent that the company can rely on it, or
if the company should put in resources to ensure that the leaders receive valuable information and
guidelines. What can also be questioned is whether the leaders should learn about virtual leadership
in their spare time, or if Ericsson should provide more educational material and set aside more
time for leaders to practice virtual leadership during their workdays to ensure that the leaders
contain the needed knowledge.
Looking at what most of the leaders want to improve in their leadership besides smaller aspects,
such as being more efficient and structured, the main thing that the leaders want to improve is how
they communicate with their virtual teams. Maybe the reason for this is because communication
is such an important thing in virtual teams, and if the communication does not work properly, the
team will not work well either. Since communication in virtual teams is conducted via ICT tools,
it is also very important that the leaders establish tools that both works well and creates a good
balance in the communication flow. The lack of clear and specific guidelines concerning
communication, including how to use the ICT tools is probably one of the reasons why almost all
leaders want to improve their communication skills. With focus on communication technologies,
it appears that not all rooms have the right equipment, which makes the usage of video
communication difficult in larger meetings. Since video communication in this study is confirmed
as highly important for the communication in virtual teams, that indicates that currently the leaders
do not have the best prerequisites for managing their virtual teams successfully. Ericsson would
possibly benefit from making this a priority since communication is essential in virtual teams. To
make sure that the needed communication tools are available at all sites at Ericsson is a smaller
change that can benefit the prerequisites for effective virtual teams a lot since all communication
relies on the ICT tools.
To improve the sharing of knowledge and experiences of leaders in virtual teams is something that
several leaders bring up. Some provide concrete examples of what Ericsson can offer their leaders
as well as team members. One example is having more workshops where leaders can share their
experiences, exchange their ideas and learn more about different cultures. Also, one leader
mentions that it would be a good idea to implement an internal database system, like an “internal
Ericsson database” where one can save important information that can be useful for virtual leaders
and teams. It might also be a good idea to try to update and try to get more people to use the
Ericsson-forums that already are available today. If all leaders would receive some kind of
(perhaps mandatory) education in how to lead virtual teams it can create good conditions for the
leader to minimize the challenges within the areas: communication, coordination, and location.
The mentioned suggestions can further be a way to enhance the development of virtual leadership
after the general knowledge is obtained.
A few leaders also highlight the benefits of not only educating the leaders but also the team
members as the performance in virtual teams do not only depend on the leaders. That suggestion
71
is also worth considering since it can make the process towards a well-functioning virtual team
more efficient and time effective.
What also can be discussed, is what seems to be a lack of continuous coaching from higher
management concerning virtual leadership. This is something that could be looked upon further
since a need for support and coaching in virtual leadership can be identified among the leaders.
For example, several leaders wish for more guidelines about, for example, how often they should
visit the different sites or team building activities that can benefit the virtual teams. This indicates
that the current prerequisites for leading virtual teams are not optimal, which means that there are
improvements to make. Another thing that perhaps can improve the leaders’ situation concerns the
decision-making process. It seems to be common that decisions to move forward with processes
are not taken unless everyone attends a meeting and approves the proposal, which might be less
efficient than it can be. One way of addressing that is to push down responsibilities lower in the
hierarchy, thus enable faster decision-making. As the results of this study contributes to previous
results by showing that traditional hierarchical leadership is not beneficial in virtual teams, it
motivates that way of enabling faster decision-making.
What can be discussed from a positive point of view is that Ericsson seems to have significantly
increased and improved the information transmission and supply regarding what it is like to work
virtually as a result of the covid-19 pandemic. Hopefully this is a change that is here to stay and
can lead to further improvements in the development of Ericsson’s work with virtual teams and
virtual leadership.
72
7 Recommendations and Future Research In this part, the final recommendations based on the conclusions, as well as the discussion are
presented. These recommendations are primarily aimed for Ericsson to use, but the intention is
that these findings also can be implemented in other companies with virtual teams.
7.1 Recommendations
The following recommendations are made for leaders of virtual teams at Ericsson for them to
coordinate and lead their teams successfully within the researched areas communication,
coordination and location.
7.1.1 Recommendations Addressing Communication
• Leaders should ensure that their teams meet face to face, especially in the beginning when
a virtual team is formed. That as meeting face to face helps to build trust and cohesion as
well as it makes the communication via ICT tools more efficient after having met.
• Leaders should build trust by showing that they care for their teams by listening to the team
members and by helping them to develop themselves. When aiming to build trust, the
leader should have one-on-one communication and avoid mass e-mailing.
• Leaders should be clear in their communication to make sure that team members
understand what is being communicated. To do this the leader can make sure that what has
been said is documented and shared to avoid misunderstandings.
• Leaders should set ground rules for communication with the team by defining what tools
to use, for what purpose, and set time restrictions on when to answer. The leader should
also make sure that all team members are educated in and are comfortable with the tools
that are used so that everyone agrees on what is decided within the team.
• Leaders should use video communication tools as much as possible when communicating
with their teams because it allows sharing non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, with
the aim to reduce the sense of distance and to increase understanding among team
members.
• Leaders should work with goal-alignment so that everyone in the team interprets the goals
similarly, as well as the leaders should show how the team creates value in the bigger
picture.
7.1.2 Recommendations Addressing Coordination
• Leaders should push down responsibilities in the hierarchy by using some type of shared
leadership to increase their motivation and cohesion within the group.
• Leaders should, depending on the interdependence level and how the team prefers to work,
adapt the responsibilities within the team. Leaders should help the team to become as
autonomous as possible by providing structural support and strive to fulfill the team
members’ needs and wishes since it is harder for a virtual leader to monitor what is
conducted from distance.
• Leaders should clearly define the roles of the team members to avoid uncertainty that may
affect the team’s performance, and make sure that all members understand how their roles
create value and what respective members of the team have as expertise.
73
• Leaders should ensure that team members working at other sites feel as included in the
team as those who are co-located to avoid the feeling of isolation.
• Leaders should complement their leadership by delegating some responsibility to local
team leaders if it is possible, as it is easier for them to take part in what happens on-site.
7.1.3 Recommendations Addressing Location
• Leaders should be aware of cultural differences when putting together a team to facilitate
collaboration. Leaders should choose persons who are culturally aware and who can adapt
to the culture within the team, as well as that it is important that the chosen persons can
show an empathic ability.
• Leaders should identify and demonstrate the value of having a diversified team as it enables
better decisions making. To increase cohesion in a diverse team, the leader should focus
on the teams’ similarities rather than on their differences.
• Leaders should evaluate each situation separately when deciding on the geographical
distribution depending on what the leader/the company wants to get out of the team, as the
spreading across time zones impact both accuracy and speed.
• Leaders should keep in mind that it is advantageous to have sites that collaborate within
the same time zone if the team is not used to work virtually to create the best prerequisites
for the team.
• Leaders should implement an operational language that all members of the team understand
and master to avoid misunderstandings and miscommunications.
7.1.4 Recommendations from the Discussion
• Ericsson should make sure to have the right equipment such as video communication tools
in the conference rooms for creating the right prerequisites for their virtual teams and
leaders.
• Ericsson should offer more educational material to both leaders and employees on how to
coordinate and lead virtual teams, respectively about the conditions when being part of a
virtual team to increase knowledge about virtual teams overall.
• Ericsson should implement ways of sharing knowledge and experiences of leaders working
in virtual teams, like for example offer workshops and/or an internal database to increase
the spreading of knowledge as well as storage about virtual teams.
74
7.2 Future Research
Based on the empirical findings, the analysis and the conclusions, some ideas about future research
regarding the leadership of virtual teams can be suggested. Although the concept of virtual teams
is becoming more and more common, this study shows that there are still many challenges leaders
of virtual teams face, as well as new ones emerge in line with increased globalization and
improvements in technology. At the same time, there are not that many clear actions for leaders to
take to address these.
What would be interesting to investigate further, is to compare Ericsson’s virtual work with a focus
on leadership, with other companies in similar industries, but also with companies in other
industries. This, to get a perspective on what are industry-specific challenges and what are more
general challenges with leadership in virtual teams. A multi-case study of several companies would
therefore be interesting to supplement this study with, since it could identify new challenges, as
well as how these challenges successfully can be managed. Another area that would be interesting
to investigate further is a topic that has emerged during this study, namely how the covid-19
pandemic has affected Ericsson and its employees. Almost all of Ericsson’s employees have been
working from home during this pandemic, but they are not alone. As known, this is something that
has affected the entire population of the world and the majority today works virtually from home.
Therefore, virtual work, and virtual teams, is a very current topic. Still, if the focus is put at
Ericsson, it would be interesting to investigate how this pandemic has affected Ericsson’s virtual
work and whether it has led to permanent changes in the company, and if not, why these changes
have not become permanent. It would also be interesting to investigate if the leadership in virtual
teams differs within the different departments at Ericsson, or if the result of this study represents
a larger part of Ericsson than what is now assumed. To involve other perspectives than the leader’s
is also something that would be interesting to study further, for example form the team member’s
perspective.
Future research on leadership in virtual teams can contribute to a greater understanding of this
somewhat complex concept, and how the challenges that virtual teams face can be successfully
managed by leaders. The prerequisites are constantly changing as new communication
technologies emerge, making researching about virtual teams a topic that continues to be
interesting.
75
8 References Ahrne, G., & Svensson, P. (2015). Handbok i kvalitativa metoder. Stockholm: Liber AB.
Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (2003, January). Adding the “E” to E-Leadership: How it May Impact
Your Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 325-338. Retrieved from
ScienceDirect.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods, 3rd edition. United States: Oxford
University Press Inc., New York.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2017). Företagsekonomiska forskningsmetoder. Stockholm: Liber.
Carmel, E. (2006). Building your information systems from the other side of the world: How
Infosys manages time zone differences. MIS Quarterly Executive, 43-53.
DasGupta, P. (2011). Literature Review: e-Leadership. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 4(1), 1-
36.
Davis, D. D., & Bryant, J. L. (2003). Influence at a distance: Leadership in Global Virtual Teams.
DuFrene, D. D., & Lehman, C. M. (2016). Managing Virtual Teams (2nd ed.). New York, United
States of America: Business Expert Press.
Edger, C. (2012). Effective Multi-Unit Leadership : Local Leadership in Multi-Site Situations.
Birmingham City University, UK: Routledge.
Edwards, A. A., & Wilson, J. R. (2004). Implementing virtual teams. a guide to organizational
and human factors. Routledge.
Eikenberry, K., & Turmel, W. (2018). The Long-Distance Leader: Rules for Remarkable Remote
Leadership. Berrett-Koehler.
Ericsson. (2019, 04 07). Ericsson. Retrieved 03 25, 20, from Ericsson:
https://www.ericsson.com/en/about-us
Espinosa, J., Carmel, E., & Wiley, J. (2004). The impact of time separation on coordination in
global software teams: a conceptual foundation. Software Process Improvement and
Practice, 249-266.
Espinosa, J., Nan, N., & Carmel, E. (2007). Do Gradations of Time Zone Separation Make a
Difference in Performance? A First Laboratory Study. IEEE. Munich, Germany.
Fisher, K., & Fisher, M. (2001). The Distance Manager: A Hands-On Guide to Managing Off-Site
Employees and Virtual Teams. McGraw-Hill.
Ghauri, P., Grønhaug, K., & Strange, R. (2020). Research Methods in Business Studies (Vol. 5).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gillham, B. (2008). Forskningsinvtervjun - Tekniker och genomförande. Malmö: Holmbergs.
76
Gupta, R. K., & Awasthy, R. (2015). Qualitative Research in Management : Methods and
Experiences. SAGE Publications.
Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current
empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 69-95.
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 – 403.
Ivanaj, S., & Bozon, C. (2016). Managing Virtual Teams. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward
Elgar.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999, 11 1). Communication and Trust in Global Virtual
Teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791-815.
Karlsson, S., & Rohdin, P. (2020, 01 24). Line Manager. (I. Kylefalk, & L. Hallberg, Interviewers)
Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2002). Leadership Effectiveness in Global Virtual Teams.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 7-40.
Lawlor, B. (2007). The Age of Globalization: Impact of Information Technology on Global
Business Strategies. Honors Projects in Computer Information Systems.
Lee-Kelley, L., & Sankey, T. (2008, Aug). Global virtual teams for value creation and project
success: A case study. International Journal od Project Management, 51-62.
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007, 02 01). Leading Virtual Teams. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 60-70.
Miloslavic, S., Wildman, J. L., & Thayer, A. L. (2015). Chapter 4 - Structuring Successful Global
Virtual Teams.
Minton-Eversole, T. (2012, 07 19). Virtual Teams Used Most by Global Organizations, Survey
Says. Retrieved 03 15, 20, from SHRM: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-
topics/organizational-and-employee-
development/pages/virtualteamsusedmostbyglobalorganizations,surveysays.aspx
Mohrman, S. A. (1998). The Context for Geographically Dispersed Teams and Networks. Southern
California.
Pullan, P. (2016). Virtual Leadership: Practical Strategies for Getting the Best Out of Virtual Work
and Virtual Teams. Kogan Page.
Rico, R., & Cohen, S. G. (2005). Effects of task interdependence and type of communication on
performance in virtual teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 261-274.
SHRM. (2015, 11). Understanding Organizational Structures. Retrieved 03 10, 20, from SHRM:
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-
samples/toolkits/pages/understandingorganizationalstructures.aspx
77
Udom, A. (2017). Virtual Team Success: The Impact of Leadership Style and Project Management
Experience. Retrieved from Walden University ScholarWorks.
Zander, L., Zettinig, P., & Mäkelä, K. (2013). Leading global virtual teams to success.
Organizational Dynamics, 42(3), 228-237.
78
Appendix 1: Information about Interview Study Hello!
Our names are Ida Kylefalk and Lova Hallberg. We are during this spring writing our Master
Thesis for Linköping University (LiU), at Ericsson in Kista.
We received your name from our supervisors Sara Karlsson and Pierre Rohdin (Line Managers)
here at Ericsson, for the reason that we are interested in your experience of leading virtual teams!
The more precise subject of the master thesis is:
“How to coordinate and lead teams in organizations that run projects at multiple sites, using
virtual teams, (with focus on Ericsson’s situation).”
Would you be interested in participating in a semi-structured interview? You will be able to access
the paper when it is complete and hopefully you will find the content valuable. Your insights are
very important to us and we would appreciate your participation!
If you are interested, we will agree on a time that suits you. The estimated time for the interview
is about 60 minutes and it will be recorded for the purpose to not miss or misunderstand something
that is said during the interview. After transcription the recording will be destroyed. If you agree
to participate in an interview, you will be guaranteed anonymity throughout the master thesis. You
can cancel your participation at any time.
Kind Regards,
Ida Kylefalk and Lova Hallberg
79
Appendix 2: Interview Questionnaire Before the interview starts
1. Presentation of ourselves
2. Information about the purpose, use of the interview and approximate time
3. Inform the participant about anonymity and voluntary cancellation at any time
Background questions
1. Your approximate employment time at Ericsson?
2. How long have you been a leader of that time?
Initial questions
1. Have you been a part of, led or both led and participated in a virtual team?
a. For how long?
b. Size of the teams?
c. How many involved sites?
2. Have you experienced any challenges with working in virtual teams?
a. How did you handle them?
b. Were there any activities or actions that worked better than others?
3. What are the benefits of using virtual teams according to you?
4. Have you lead a virtual team that were successful?
a. Why do you think the outcome was successful?
5. Have you experienced any differences when leading shorter or longer projects?
6. Do you receive any directions from Ericsson concerning how you should work/lead
this kind of teams?
a. How do you develop your own leadership skills?
Coordination-related questions
1. How is a team created? By who?
a. What are the decisions of team formation based on? (Capabilities/location/size)
2. What’s the strategy concerning distribution of responsibilities?
3. How do you measure performance/success?
80
Communication-related questions
1. What type of communication is essential for virtual teams?
a. What kind of ICT tools do you use? Prefer? Why?
2. How do you balance the communication flow?
a. Strategy?
b. Content?
3. Do you meet face to face with your team?
a. If yes, how often? Why?
4. How often do you communicate with your team at different sites?
Location-related questions
1. Which factors in terms of geographical dispersion affect the performance of the
virtual teams?
a. Both positive and negative factors? (time zones/cultures/trust)
2. Do you think that the distribution of team members matter? Like for example if one
there is only one person on one site and more on others?
a. How?
b. What distribution do you believe is better?
3. How do you make sure that everyone’s capabilities/potential are utilized?
4. How do you as a leader create commitment and trust in the team?
Closing part
1. What’s the ideal leadership in virtual teams according to you?
(Shared/rotated/hierarchal…)
2. Is there anything you would like to improve in your own virtual leadership style?
3. Is there anything that Ericsson could do to facilitate your work or leadership of
virtual teams?
Thanks for valuable insights!
1. Is there anything that may have been misunderstood during the interview?
2. Is there anything more that you would like to lift that has not been addressed?
(Summing up and declare what the next steps are in the study!)
Thanks for your participation!
81
Appendix 3: Consent to Participate in the Interview Study This document must be signed by the interviewee and interviewer(s) before conducting an
interview.
For the interviewee:
I agree to participate in an individual interview that will also be recorded in the form of a sound
pickup. I can at any time cancel my participation and withdraw my consent. I have been
informed about the purpose of the study and what the outcome of my participation will be used
for.
Name of interviewee:
Date:
City:
Name(s) of interviewer:
Date:
City:
