The potential of virtual global mobility: implications for practice and future research

Abstract

PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic has forced global organizations to adopt technology-driven virtual solutions involving faster, less costly and more effective ways to work worldwide even after the pandemic. One potential outcome may be through virtual global mobility (VGM), defined as the replacement of personal physical international interactions for work purposes with electronic personal online interactions. The purpose of this article is to establish VGM as a theoretical concept and explore to what extent it can replace or complement physical global work assignments.Design/methodology/approachThis perspectives article first explores advantages and disadvantages of global virtual work and then discusses the implementation of VGM and analyses to what extent and how VGM can replace and complement physical global mobility.FindingsRepresenting a change of trend, long-term corporate expatriates could become necessary core players in VGM activities while the increase of the number of global travelers may be halted or reversed. VGM activities will grow and further develop due to a continued rapid development of communication and coordination technologies. Consequently, VGM is here to stay!Originality/value The authors have witnessed a massive trend of increasing physical global mobility where individuals have crossed international borders to conduct work. The authors are now observing the emergence of a counter-trend: instead of moving people to their work the authors often see organizations moving work to people. This article has explored some of the advantages, disadvantages, facilitators and barriers of such global virtual work. Given the various purposes of global work the authors chart the suitability of VGM to fulfill these organizational objectives.

Exploring the Impact of COVID‐19 on Employees’ Boundary Management and Work–Life Balance

“…With ongoing variants of COVID‐19 since the initial outbreak, organizations continue to cope with the changing conditions imposed by this health crisis. No wonder, then, that more organizations are considering virtual work as a pragmatic response that is relatively low‐risk, effective and cost‐efficient (Selmer et al ., 2022 ; Weale and Adams, 2021 ). This might mean that working from home is likely to be more common and, for families with school‐aged children, those children return to their homes during the afternoon, increasing family demands and boundary issues for the remainder of that working day.…”

From travel to virtual work: The transitional experiences of global workers during Covid-19

“…In this context, reference to flexible global working arrangements ( Jooss et al, 2021b ) or global work arrangements ( Reiche et al, 2019 ) might be more fruitful, allowing for wider discussion of the multiple transitions that individuals may make between different types of global work on a daily basis. Considering the shifting landscape of global mobility and given the centrality of GVW amidst the pandemic and likely beyond ( Selmer et al, 2022 ), we contend that any definitions of global work should more firmly view virtual working as a one of the core approaches to conducting cross-border business. As our study considered the transition from global travel to GVW, we build on Jooss et al’s (2021b) definition of flexible global working arrangements, integrating not just physical mobility but also virtual mobility.…”

“…This exogenous crisis event is transforming the world of global mobility in multinational enterprises (MNEs) and has forced individuals to transition to new or unfamiliar ways of carrying out their global work ( Caligiuri et al, 2020 , Jackowska and Lauring, 2021 ). In the context of MNEs, global virtual work (GVW) has become fundamental to how firms coordinate and control cross-border activities ( Hafermalz and Riemer, 2020 , Selmer et al, 2022 ). MNEs have had to eradicate or, at a minimum, severely reduce global travel that was previously used to establish ‘spaces of collocation’ and face-to-face interaction for global workers across country borders ( Faulconbridge et al, 2020 , Reiche et al, 2019 ).…”

“…Covid-19 has demanded that global workers engaged in extensive travel routines abruptly end any collocated situations and transition to a GVW environment ( Selmer et al, 2022 ). This pandemic presents a new and unique research context for international business scholars ( Caligiuri et al, 2020 ), and challenges individuals and MNEs to rethink their approach to global work, and in particular the heavy reliance on travel.…”

Guest editorial: Global mobility in times of global calamity: COVID-19 reactions, responses, and ramifications for the future of work

“…On a more general level, we believe it is worth exploring whether, and to what extent, there will be a transition from international assignments to global virtual work (Selmer et al , 2022) which has implications for the corporate return on investment (cROI) of assignments (McNulty and DeCiere, 2011), cultural intelligence and cultural experience (Pidduck et al , 2022), as well as expatriate/repatriate career progression Breitenmoser et al (2018). Related to that, it is worth exploring how new forms of managing staff globally will affect selection and training of global employees and build upon work investigating the impact of external threats on the global value chain (Bader et al , 2020).…”