A systems perspective on offshoring strategy and motivational drivers amongst onshore and offshore employees

Abstract

Citation: ZIMMERMANN, A. and RAVISHANKAR, M.N., 2016. A systems perspective on offshoring strategy and motivational drivers amongst onshore and offshore employees. Journal of World Business, 51 (4), pp. 548-567.Additional Information: motivation to transfer advanced tasks and (c) offshore employees' motivation to spend effort on their tasks and stay with the firm. We analyse how these three elements interact and produce feedback loops to create an 'offshoring system'.Extrapolating from our findings, we propose how the offshoring system is likely to develop within the external constraints set by the attainable expertise of offshore employees and by client demands.

Managerial work characteristics and organizational commitment after offshoring:

“…In particular, our study suggests that the reactions of onshore employees to increases in job complexity and international working requirements through offshoring may result not only in varied efforts to support the offshoring operation (e.g. Metiu, 2006;Zimmermann, & Ravishankar, 2016), but will also affect individuals' affective organizational commitment, a relationship suggested by the work design literature. Moreover, the variation in employees' reactions to offshoring seem to depend at least in parts on employees' perceptions of organizational valence, a concept taken from the organizational change literature.…”

“…Zimmermann, & Ravishankar, 2016) and attitudes (Metiu, 2006;Zimmermann et al, 2012, Zimmermann, & Ravishankar, 20112014;2016). However, this research has not applied the well-developed constructs and measures of work characteristics and readiness for change.…”

“…A small number of studies has further demonstrated that onshore employees react differently to such changes on their work characteristics (Zimmermann, & Ravishankar, 2016;Zimmermann, Raab, & Zanotelli, 2012). Whilst some employees support the offshoring of tasks wholeheartedly by spending personal effort in knowledge transfer or mentoring offshore colleagues, others are seen to avoid the task transfer wherever possible (Metiu, 2006;Zimmermann et al, 2012).…”

“…Whilst some employees support the offshoring of tasks wholeheartedly by spending personal effort in knowledge transfer or mentoring offshore colleagues, others are seen to avoid the task transfer wherever possible (Metiu, 2006;Zimmermann et al, 2012). Prior research has attributed these different reactions primarily to employees' varied evaluation of offshoring (Metiu, 2006;Zimmermann, & Ravishankar, 2016). For example, the move of routine tasks to offshore destinations can be regarded either as an opportunity to concentrate on more complex work, or as a threat to one's own technical expertise and career (Metiu, 2006), leading to either cooperation or resistance to offshoring (Zimmermann, & Ravishankar, 2011;Zimmermann et al, 2012).…”

“…For example, the move of routine tasks to offshore destinations can be regarded either as an opportunity to concentrate on more complex work, or as a threat to one's own technical expertise and career (Metiu, 2006), leading to either cooperation or resistance to offshoring (Zimmermann, & Ravishankar, 2011;Zimmermann et al, 2012). Similarly, the need to concentrate on international coordination and mentoring is by some regarded as enriching and by others as an additional burden, resulting in varying degrees of support for the offshoring operation (Zimmermann et al, 2012;Zimmermann, & Ravishankar, 2016). Employees can also hold contrasting views on offshoring with regards to outcomes that are relevant for the organization, for example regarding the effects of offshoring on performance, efficiency, cost savings, and the potential loss of core competences at the onshore unit, combined with the danger of over-dependence on the offshore unit (Dibber, Winkler, & Heinzl, 2008;Zimmermann et al, 2012).…”