Paradox and the negotiation of tensions in globally distributed work

Abstract

Tensions are a major source of communication problems, coordination issues, and conflict in globally distributed work. In this article, we argue that extant literature falls short of addressing tensions in globally distributed work at two levels. First, it fails to fully account for the intrinsic and entrenched nature of tensions in globally distributed work, suggesting instead that they can be resolved or made to disappear. Second, it does not examine the key interactions among different kinds of tensions. Drawing on qualitative data from a distributed finance organization and applying concepts from paradox theory, we show how globally distributed units negotiate knowledge, power, and identity tensions in collaborative work. The findings illuminate how a sequential enactment of both formal and informal solutions can better address tensions and generate collaborative opportunities in globally distributed work. Building on the findings, we develop a phasal model of tension evolution and management in globally distributed work which explains how tensions evolve from a phase of suppression through to a phase of attenuation. We demonstrate the interactions of knowledge–power–identity tensions against a background of defensive, interactive, and collaborative behaviors, and suggest several practical implications for globally distributed work practice.

Workarounds and shadow IT – balancing innovation and risk

“…Often intermediaries are involved in managing the flows of information. A paper (Brooks 2018) explores these complex issues in some detail with quotes from participants.…”

Mitigating coopetition tensions: The forgotten formation stage

“…The coopetition paradox is exemplified by the tensions generated by balancing the organization's own value creation while sharing valuable knowledge, resources, and capabilities with the competing partner. In fact, organizational tensions in themselves are a typical source of paradox (Brooks et al, 2020). At the same time, an organization's ability to successfully manage tensions, while difficult, can challenge stale thinking patterns, produce enlightenment and foster creativity (Lewis, 2000).…”

Status differentials and framing in the implementation of IT‐enabled task migration strategies

“…Task migration is often associated with global sourcing, wherein activities are lifted from BUs and shifted to support units, which are often based in a different location (Gospel & Sako, 2010). The idea is that post‐migration, BUs will be able to focus on activities that create strategic value, leaving the support unit to perform the shifted tasks with greater efficiency (Brooks et al, 2020; Tiwana & Keil, 2007). There is also an underlying expectation that post‐migration, the support unit will simplify processes and undertake transformative projects by adopting more advanced IT tools (Leonardi & Bailey, 2017).…”

“…The paper critically examines the perspective of both high‐status BUs from where tasks are migrated and the low‐status subsidiary unit that performs the migrated tasks (cf. Brooks et al, 2020; Leonardi & Bailey, 2017; Ravishankar, 2015). The findings show how high‐status BUs frame their own actions as a case of protecting, offering support and monitoring the migrated tasks while the low‐status support unit frames the same set of actions as a sign of resistance, interference and hypercriticism.…”

“…IS research has taken significant interest in the migration of tasks across firm and national boundaries. In particular, the IS sourcing literature has explored the migration of IT‐enabled tasks to both internal support units (insourcing) and to external providers (outsourcing) in different parts of the world (Brooks et al, 2020; Gospel & Sako, 2010; Levina & Vaast, 2008; Mani et al, 2014). Strategic‐level decisions around the migration of non‐core tasks to support units are typically arrived at through compelling predictions of future cost savings and promise of efficiencies and flexibility (Brooks et al, 2020; Lacity et al, 2016; Tiwana & Keil, 2007).…”