Understanding orientations to participation: overcoming status differences to foster engagement in global teams

Abstract

A key challenge facing global teams lies in overcoming status differences in order to elicit participation and input from all members. This study extends prior research-which has focused largely on individuallevel factors such as language, culture, and location that create status differences that fracture teams and reduce participation-by examining members' underlying orientations to participation, team practices that encourage these, and their impacts on global team effectiveness. We draw on a rich multilevel, mixed-method data set consisting of 45 in-depth interviews and a comprehensive analysis of conference calls from 9 global teams in a multinational integrated mining, minerals processing, and manufacturing organization. We identified three orientations to participation (Help, Learn, and Engage). Team-level analysis revealed team practices that encouraged certain orientations to participation to emerge, in particular relationships across sites and input solicitation. Only the Engage orientation was positively associated with overall global team effectiveness. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Reimagining e-leadership for reconfigured virtual teams due to Covid-19

“…They also posit that — because of VT members’ dispersion and their ICT-mediated communication — developing employee engagement needs to be an ongoing effort that should be evident and supported across the different phases of the project. In a more recent study, Gibbs, Gibson, Grushina, and Dunlop (2021) emphasise the importance of interaction and communication in GVTs, arguing that they have the ability to dimmish the importance of status differences between GVT members, and, by extension, influence GVT members’ participation and engagement. While these findings are important, we need to explore how worker engagement is cultivated in Covid-19 VTs whereby high levels of uncertainty, impromptu lockdowns, and travel restrictions might influence not only the mode of work (e.g., purely virtual or hybrid), but also workers’ psychological well-being over time.…”

Positive work reflection during the evening and next‐day work engagement: Testing mediating mechanisms and cyclical processes

“…In addition, leaders may facilitate and encourage high-quality co-worker interactions by setting a good example in demonstrating supportive behaviours to their team members, and by developing trust between co-workers so that employees are more motivated to provide support for their co-workers. Employees across the organization's hierarchy should be encouraged to maximize their engagement with each other by contributing their expertise as well as soliciting help from others (Gibbs, Gibson, Grushina, & Dunlop, 2021). Additionally, leaders should seek to reassure and minimize potential negative belief that accepting help from co-workers may indicate a lack of selfreliance and undermine their own performance (Thompson & Bolino, 2018).…”

Sustaining Effectiveness in Global Teams: The Coevolution of Knowledge Management Activities and Technology Affordances

“…For example, a cue may be a recognition of differences across sites in the way in which the team performs a particular operational procedure (Gibson et al 2019). Another example of a cue is hesitation on the part of members at certain sites in participating (Gibbs et al 2021). These cues should signal to the team that it is time for existing affordances to change-in terms of both purpose for use and how the technology is used.…”

“…Because global teams are fast becoming a normative mode of work (Hinds et al 2011, Gibbs et al 2021, understanding how shifts in KM activities across the globe are supported by technology affordance processes becomes integral to further theorizing about teams and crucial for the overall success of firms. If they are to continue to accomplish the objectives their organizations establish for them, global teams must recognize the new KM purposes that emerge, acknowledge when technology affordances have become constraints, and subsequently change the way they use their communication technology to sustain effectiveness.…”