Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theory: Challenges for Cooperation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Hybrid Virtual Teams in Shared Services Organizations

Part of the book series: Progress in IS ((PROIS))

  • 1872 Accesses

Abstract

Virtual teams, especially hybrid virtual teams, are very popular within organizations today and are the prevalent setup in Shared Services Organizations. But as the following elaborations will show, a successful cooperation between the members of such teams may likely be at risk. Such cooperation problems usually arise through motivational and/or circumstantial reasons. Yet, as this context may be particularly challenging, in the study presented in this book I focus on the latter one and identify three contextual challenges as sensitizing concepts to better understand the circumstantial reasons for cooperation problems in hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations. Hence, I will start this chapter with a definition of teams and virtual teams to then conceptualize hybrid virtual teams. Afterwards, I will present the Shared Services Organizations as an example for a particularly challenging context for hybrid virtual teams. Then, I will define the cooperation problem in such teams and introduce the three sensitizing concepts of contextual challenges related to distance, technology and temporality. Thereby, I will outline how each of them may compound the cooperation problem between the members of hybrid virtual teams in Shared Services Organizations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Within the different literature streams with reference to virtual teams, the term ‘virtual team’ is commonly used to describe teams, which are either purely virtual teams or hybrid virtual teams. The main differentiator between those two types of virtual teams is the geographic location and the reliance on communication technology. Hence these types of virtual teams are distinct and potentially differeing team dynamics may unfold because of those different context conditions. Yet, throughout the study presented in this book, I will also ground my theoretical reflections on literature, which more generally refers to virtual teams without differentiating between purely or hybrid virtual teams, because such reflections will still provide a theoretical sensitivity and potential answers to phenomena in hybrid virtual teams.

  2. 2.

    Different streams of literature have either deployed the term ‘team’ (e.g. empowered teams and team effectiveness) or the term ‘group’ (e.g. group cohesion, group dynamics and group effectiveness; Guzzo and Dickinson 1996) in the attempt to stress certain aspects, such as e.g. ‘groupness’ (e.g. Katzenbach and Smith 1993; Cohen and Bailey 1997). Yet, for the present research the two terms are used interchangably.

  3. 3.

    The qualifiers ‘virtual’, ‘dispersed’, ‘distributed’, ‘far-flung’ or ‘global’ have all been used to specify teams that span across multiple geographical locations and rely on information technology to accomplish their objectives. In my research, I use the term ‘virtual teams’ to represent this construct.

  4. 4.

    Other scholars have coined such teams as ‘partially distributed team’, which they equally defined as a team consisting of at least two geographically distinct locations, with multiple members collocated at each location and members must interact with both collocated and distant members (e.g. Carmel and Abbott 2007; Ocker et al. 2009). Alternatively, Webster and Wong (2008: 42) name such teams ‘semi-virtual’ team, while also referring to a team comprising local subgroup and remote team members. Some scholars stress that further research about such semi-virtual teams is needed (Pauleen 2003), because hybrid virtual teams likely encounter different team dynamics compared to fully virtual teams (Webster and Staples 2006; Webster and Wong 2008: 42).

  5. 5.

    Schulz and Brenner (2010) used the search terms “shared service center(re)”, “shared service organiz(s)ation” and “shared services” for their literature review, therewith implicating that those terms can be used interchangeably. In line with that, a recent KPMG Report (2015: 8) states, that “Shared Service Center” (SSC) used to be the most frequently used term, because the services, which are shared within the corporation, have been provided by a center in the beginning. Nowadays, the organizational structure of the support function is more complex and can comprise multiple centers across the world, wherefore the term “Shared Service Organisation” (SSO) would best describe it. Consistently, Herbert and Seal (2012: 83) deployed the SSO label to intentionally emphasize the special organisational characteristics of the new model, which distinguishes it from the ‘traditional’ centralised- or head-office model of service provision. I will therefore use “Shared Services” and “Shared Services Organization” in the study presented in this book. The capitalized spelling of the former refers to the organizational model, in order to distinguish it from shared services in lowercase, the term describing the actual service tasks provided.

  6. 6.

    The term ‘offshoring’ signifies the relocation of organizational activities to either a fully owned subsidiary or to an independent service provider (outsourcing) in another country. Nearshoring describes the relocation of organizational activities to a neighboring country, for example when US-American organizations relocate their work to Canada or Mexico (Oshri et al. 2015: 4–5).

  7. 7.

    Besides the Social Identity Theory and its sister theory Self-Categorization Theory, faultline researchers used additional theoretical streams to explain faultlines, e.g. optimal distinctiveness theory, distance theory, cross-categorization theory or categorization-elaboration model; for further details see the review by Thatcher and Patel (2012).

  8. 8.

    Irrespective of the causality, the relationship between faultlines and the aforementioned outcomes is stronger once the individual team members actually perceive the split of their team into different subgroups—a so-called active faultline (Bezrukova et al. 2009; Jehn and Bezrukova 2010). Yet, the effect does not disappear in case the split is not perceived—a so-called dormant faultline (Bezrukova et al. 2009; Jehn and Bezrukova 2010; Thatcher and Patel 2012). When the two scholars Lau and Murnighan (1998) started to model faultlines in teams, they pithily conceptualize team faultlines as analogous to geological faults. Such geological faults are fractures in the earth’s crust and without external forces these fractures may be dormant for quite a while without being noticed on the surface (Lau and Murnighan 1998: 328). In a similar vein, faultlines within teams can be distinguished between hypothetical and perceived faultlines. The hypothetical faultlines are not necessarily perceived by the individual team members. In contrast, perceived faultlines are those ones where the team members subjectively perceive that their team splits into different subgroups.

References

  • Adler, T. R. (2007). Swift trust and distrust in strategic partnering relationships: Key considerations of team-based designs. Journal of Business Strategies, 24(2), 105–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alderfer, C. P. (1977). Improving organizational communication through long-term intergroup intervention. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1(3), 193–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alderfer, C. P. (1987). An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 190–222). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alnuaimi, O. A., Robert, L. P., & Maruping, L. M. (2010). Team size, dispersion, and social loafing in technology-supported teams: A perspective on the theory of moral disengagement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(1), 203–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ancona, D. G., Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Time: A new research lens. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 645–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonucci, T. C., & Jackson, J. S. (1990). The role of reciprocity in social support. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 173–198). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, D. J., & Cole, P. (2002). Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In Distributed work (pp. 167–186).

    Google Scholar 

  • Athanasiou, R., & Yoshioka, G. A. (1973). The spatial character of friendship formation. Environment and Behavior, 5(1), 43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, R. M. (2010). Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: A systematic review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 466–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, R. M., Boroş, S., Kenis, P., & Oerlemans, L. A. (2013). It’s only temporary: Time frame and the dynamics of creative project teams. British Journal of Management, 24(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, R. M., DeFillippi, R. J., Schwab, A., & Sydow, J. (2016). Temporary organizing: Promises, processes, problems. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1703–1719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkema, H. G., & Shvyrkov, O. (2007). Does top management team diversity promote or hamper foreign expansion? Strategic Management Journal, 28(7), 663–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J., Niehaves, B., & Krause, A. (2009). Shared services strategies and their determinants: A multiple case study analysis in the public sector. In AMCIS 2009 Proceedings (p. 14).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams implications for effective leadership. Group and Organization Management, 27(1), 14–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., Jap, S. D., & Nickerson, J. A. (2006). The antecedents and performance implications of cooperative exchange norms. Organization Science, 17(6), 724–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, G. R. (2011). Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams: Understanding why traditional team skills are insufficient. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 48(2), 186–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezrukova, K., & Uparna, J. (2009). Group splits and culture shifts: A new map of the creativity terrain. In Creativity in groups (pp. 163–193). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., Zanutto, E. L., & Thatcher, S. M. (2009). Do workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A moderated model of faultlines, team identification, and group performance. Organization Science, 20(1), 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012). The effects of alignments: Examining group faultlines, organizational cultures, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bignoux, S. (2006). Short-term strategic alliances: A social exchange perspective. Management Decision, 44(5), 615–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørn, P., Esbensen, M., Jensen, R. E., & Matthiesen, S. (2014). Does distance still matter? Revisiting the CSCW fundamentals on distributed collaboration. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 21(5), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, R., Furst, S., & Rosen, B. (2003). Building a winning virtual team. In Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 95–120).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bondarouk, T. (Ed.). (2014). Shared services as a new organizational form. Emerald Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouas, K. S., & Arrow, H. (1995). The development of group identity in computer and face-to-face groups with membership change. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 4(2–3), 153–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B. (2001). Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict—When does ingroup love become outgroup hate? In R. D. Ashmore, L. Jussim, & D. Wilder (Eds.), Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction (pp. 17–41). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 557–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K., & Chidambaram, L. (1999). How much bandwidth is enough? A longitudinal examination of media characteristics and group outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 557–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, C. M., & Morley, M. J. (2016). On temporary organizations: A review, synthesis and research agenda. Human Relations, 69(6), 1235–1258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlin, R. E., & Love, G. J. (2013). The politics of interpersonal trust and reciprocity: An experimental approach. Political Behavior, 35(1), 43-63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmel, E., & Abbott, P. (2007). Why ‘nearshore’ means that distance matters. Communications of the ACM, 50(10), 40–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2012). A theory of subgroups in work teams. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 441–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarterly, 143–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chidambaram, L., & Tung, L. L. (2005). Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Information Systems Research, 16(2), 149–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chudoba, K. M., Wynn, E., Lu, M., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2005). How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization. Information Systems Journal, 15(4), 279–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L. L., & Swim, J. K. (1995). The differential impact of gender ratios on women and men: Tokenism, self-confidence, and expectations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(9), 876–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, F. L. (2006). Modeling an HR shared services centre: Experience of an MNC in the United Kingdom. Human Resource Management, 45(2), 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cota, A. A., & Dion, K. L. (1986). Salience of gender and sex composition of ad hoc groups: An experimental test of distinctiveness theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, J. C. (2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 46(2), 260–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2004). Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams: Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning? Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 231–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. N., & Haas, M. R. (2012). So many teams, so little time—Time allocation matters in geographically dispersed teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 316–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlin, K. B., Weingart, L. R., & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Team diversity and information use. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1107–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidow, W. H., & Malone, M. S. (1992). The virtual corporation: Structuring and revitalising the corporation for the 21st century. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, R., Helferich, J., Cross, R., & Ehrlich, K. (2008). Managing collaboration: Improving team effectiveness through a network perspective. California Management Review, 50(4), 74–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9(3), 256–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine, D. J. (2002). A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams in organizations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(4), 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30(6), 678–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dollery, B., & Akimov, A. (2008). A critical comment on the analysis of shared services in the Queensland local government association’s size, shape and sustainability program. Accounting, Accountability & Performance, 14(2), 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dollery, B., Akimov, A., & Byrnes, J. (2007). An analysis of shared local government services in Australia. Centre for Local Government, School of Economics, University of New England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. (2001). Mastering virtual teams: Strategies, tools and techniques that succeed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elston, T., & MacCarthaigh, M. (2016). Sharing services, saving money? Five risks to cost-saving when organizations share services. Public Money & Management, 36(5), 349–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2007). Team knowledge and coordination in geographically distributed software development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 135–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farndale, E., Paauwe, J., & Hoeksema, L. (2009). In-sourcing HR: Shared service centres in the Netherlands. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3), 544–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social processes in informal groups.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiol, C. M., & O’Connor, E. J. (2005). Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams: Untangling the contradictions. Organization Science, 16(1), 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forst, L. I. (2001). Management: Shared services grows up. Journal of Business Strategy, 22(4), 13–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, J., Osterloh, M., & Weibel, A. (2010). Governing knowledge work: Transactional and transformational solutions. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froud, J., Johal, S., Leaver, A., & Williams, K. (2006). Financialization and strategy: Narrative and numbers. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 191–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (Eds.). (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 499–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göbel, M., Vogel, R., & Weber, C. (2013). Management research on reciprocity: A review of the literature. BuR-Business Research, 6(1), 34–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gokakkar, R. (2007). Effects of social identity processes on coordination and knowledge sharing in geographically distributed software teams. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 6(04), 281–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gospel, H., & Sako, M. (2010). The unbundling of corporate functions: The evolution of shared services and outsourcing in human resource management. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1367–1396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabher, G. (2002). Cool projects, boring institutions: Temporary collaboration in social context. Regional Studies, 36(3), 205–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabher, G. (2004). Temporary architectures of learning: Knowledge governance in project ecologies. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1491–1514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gratton, L., Voigt, A., & Erickson, T. J. (2007). Bridging faultlines in diverse teams. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(4), 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, T. L., & Neale, M. A. (2001). 8. Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 379–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, T. L., Sawyer, J. E., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams: Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly, 265–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, R. J. (2010). Saving shared services HR managers who strive to operate this popular business model find that one size rarely fits all. HRMagazine, 55(9), 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M.W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behaviour (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (1982). The limits to capital. Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2009). Social identity, health and well-being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology, 58(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henttonen, K., & Blomqvist, K. (2005). Managing distance in a global virtual team: The evolution of trust through technology-mediated relational communication. Strategic Change, 14(2), 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbert, I. P., & Seal, W. B. (2012). Shared services as a new organisational form: Some implications for management accounting. The British Accounting Review, 44(2), 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbsleb, J. D., & Mockus, A. (2003). An empirical study of speed and communication in globally distributed software development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29(6), 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, P. J., & Weisband, S. P. (2003). Knowledge sharing and shared understanding in virtual teams. In A. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 21–36). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, P. J., Neeley, T. B., & Cramton, C. D. (2014). Language as a lightning rod: Power contests, emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in global teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 536–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., Irmer, B., & Chang, A. (2002). The expression of conflict in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 33(4), 439–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behavior, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(4), 325–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollenbeck, J. R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M. E. (2012). Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 82–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppner, J. J., & Griffith, D. A. (2011). The role of reciprocity in clarifying the performance payoff of relational behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 920–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howcroft, D., & Richardson, H. (2012). The back office goes global: Exploring connections and contradictions in shared service centres. Work, Employment & Society, 26(1), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IBM White Paper. (2011). Today’s shared services operating models: The engine behind enterprise transformation. IBM Global Process Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iveroth, E. (2011). The sociomaterial practice of IT-enabled change: A case study of a global transformation. Journal of Change Management, 11(3), 375–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, M., & Joha, A. (2006). Motives for establishing shared service centers in public administrations. International Journal of Information Management, 26(2), 102–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1994). The global network organization of the future: Information management opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(4), 25–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2010). The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,112(1), 24-42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karakowsky, L., DeGama, N., & McBey, K. (2012). Facilitating the Pygmalion effect: The overlooked role of subordinate perceptions of the leader. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(4), 579–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karau, S. J., & Kelly, J. R. (1992). The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(6), 542–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keep, L. (2001). Models of provision and the move to shared services: Continuing the emergent review. Bristol: NHS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelle, U. (1996). Die Bedeutung theoretischen Vorwissens in der Methodologie der Grounded Theory. In R. Strobl & A. Böttger (Eds.), Wahre Geschichten? Zur Theorie und Praxis qualitativer Interviews (pp. 23–48). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, J. R., & Loving, T. J. (2004). Time pressure and group performance: Exploring underlying processes in the attentional focus model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(2), 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennewell, S., & Baker, L. (2016). Benefits and risks of shared services in healthcare. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 30(3), 441–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidwell, R. E., & Bennett, N. (1993). Employee propensity to withhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect three avenues of research. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 429–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. In Distributed work (Vol. 1, pp. 57–80).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 67–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knol, A., Janssen, M., & Sol, H. (2014). A taxonomy of management challenges for developing shared services arrangements. European Management Journal, 32(1), 91–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In Handbook of psychology (Vol. 2, No. 14, pp. 333–375).

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG Report. (2015). Service Management in der Shared Service Organisation. Ergebnis einer empirischen Untersuchung zum Reifegrad von Shared Service Organisationen. Im Auftrag des Instituts für Accounting, Controlling und Auditing der Universität St. Gallen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas—The role of categorization processes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 191–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristof, A. L., Brown, K. G., Sims, H. P., & Smith, K. A. (1995). The virtual team: A case study and inductive model. In Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Knowledge work in teams (Vol. 2, pp. 229–253).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruse, J. (2014). Qualitative Interviewforschung. Ein integrativer Ansatz. Beltz Juventa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, K., van Fenema, P. C., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2009). Offshoring and the global distribution of work—Implications for task interdependence theory and practice. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(4), 642–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacity, M. C., Willcocks, L. P., & Rottman, J. W. (2008). Global outsourcing of back office services: Lessons, trends, and enduring challenges. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal, 1(1), 13–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 645–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(2), 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 2(3–4), 321–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., & Liebenau, J. (1999). Time in organizational studies: Towards a new research direction. Organization Studies, 20(6), 1035–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leenders, R. T. A., Van Engelen, J. M., & Kratzer, J. (2003). Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: A social network perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(1), 69–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lentz, S. S. (1996). Hybrid organization structures: A path to cost savings and customer responsiveness. Human Resource Management (1986–1998), 35(4), 453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ligthart, R., Oerlemans, L., & Noorderhaven, N. (2016). In the shadows of time: A case study of flexibility behaviors in an interorganizational project. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1721–1743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, T. C., & Huang, C. C. (2010). Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: The role of social exchange and social cognitive on project teams. Information & Management, 47(3), 188–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Working across space, time, and organizations. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1999). Virtual teams: The new way to work. Strategy & Leadership, 27(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: People working across boundaries with technology. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2004). Enabling knowledge creation in far-flung teams: Best practices for IT support and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(4), 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 60–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2013). Achieving optimal team composition for success. In Developing and enhancing high-performance teams: Evidence-based practices and advice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11(5), 473–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maznevski, M. L., & Athanassiou, N. A. (2006). Guest editors’ introduction to the focused issue: A new direction for global teams research. Management International Review, 46(6), 631–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mennecke, B. E., Valacich, J. S., & Wheeler, B. C. (2000). The effects of media and task on user performance: A test of the task-media fit hypothesis. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9(6), 507–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., Jimenez-Rodriguez, M., Wildman, J., & Shuffler, M. (2011). A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 214–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B., Shemla, M., & Schermuly, C. C. (2011). Social category salience moderates the effect of diversity faultlines on information elaboration. Small Group Research, 1046496411398396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B., Schermuly, C. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). That’s not my place: The interacting effects of faultlines, subgroup size, and social competence on social loafing behavior in work groups. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(1), 31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 166–195).

    Google Scholar 

  • Minichilli, A., Corbetta, G., & MacMillan, I. C. (2010). Top management teams in family-controlled companies: ‘Familiness’, ‘faultlines’, and their impact on financial performance. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 205–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molleman, E. (2005). Diversity in demographic characteristics, abilities and personality traits: Do faultlines affect team functioning? Group Decision and Negotiation, 14(3), 173–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monge, P. R., Rothman, L. W., Eisenberg, E. M., Miller, K. I., & Kirste, K. K. (1985). The dynamics of organizational proximity. Management Science, 31(9), 1129–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1251–1262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. J. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(3), 212–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowshowitz, A. (1997). Virtual organization. Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 30–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ness, H., & Haugland, S. A. (2005). The evolution of governance mechanisms and negotiation strategies in fixed-duration interfirm relationships. Journal of Business Research, 58(9), 1226–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Lee, H. U., & Jeong, E. (2004). Market reactions to announcements of corporate downsizing actions and implementation strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 25(11), 1121–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocker, R., Zhang, Y., Hiltz, S. R., & Ronson, M. B. (2009). Determinants of partially distributed team performance: A path analysis of socio-emotional and behavioral factors. In AMCIS 2009 Proceedings (p. 707).

    Google Scholar 

  • Offermann, L. R., & Spiros, R. K. (2001). The science and practice of team development: Improving the link. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 376–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31(3), 433–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, M. B., & Mortensen, M. (2010). Go (con)figure: Subgroups, imbalance, and isolates in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 21(1), 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osterloh, M., & Weibel, A. (2009). The governance of explorative knowledge production. In Knowledge governance-processes and perspectives (pp. 138–165).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oshri, I., Kotlarsky, J., & Willcocks, L. P. (2015). The Handbook of Global Outsourcing and Offshoring 3rd Edition. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panteli, N., & Davison, R. M. (2005). The role of subgroups in the communication patterns of global virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(2), 191–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauleen, D. J. (2003). Lessons learned crossing boundaries in an ICT-supported distributed team. Journal of Global Information Management, 11(4), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, T. (1992). Liberation management: Necessary disorganization for the nanosecond nineties. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2003). Trust and the unintended effects of behavior control in virtual teams. MIS Quarterly, 365–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 679–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poppo, L., Zhou, K. Z., & Ryu, S. (2008). Alternative origins to interorganizational trust: An interdependence perspective on the shadow of the past and the shadow of the future. Organization Science, 19(1), 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PwC Study. (2011). Shared service centers—‘The 2nd generation’. PricewaterhouseCoopers AG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, B., Cooke, R., & Kris, A. (2000). Shared services: Mining for corporate gold. Financial Times, Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramphal, R. R. (2011). The performance of South African shared services. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 22(1), 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redman, T., Snape, E., Wass, J., & Hamilton, P. (2007). Evaluating the human resource shared services model: Evidence from the NHS. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(8), 1486–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, P. (2000). HR shared services and the realignment of HR (Vol. 368). London, UK: Institute of Employment Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, P. (2014). Managing the boundaries better: The key to more effective HR shared services. In T. Bondarouk (Ed.), Shared services as a new organizational form (pp. 17–38). Emerald Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, R. E. (1992). Task analyzability, use of new media, and effectiveness: A multi-site exploration of media richness. Organization Science, 3(4), 475–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rico, R., Molleman, E., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., & Van der Vegt, G. S. (2007). The effects of diversity faultlines and team task autonomy on decision quality and social integration. Journal of Management, 33(1), 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Antino, M., & Lau, D. (2012). Bridging team faultlines by combining task role assignment and goal structure strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 407-420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigdon, M. (2009). Trust and reciprocity in incentive contracting. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70(1), 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A. E., & Murnighan, J. K. (1978). Equilibrium behavior and repeated play of the prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 17(2), 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, A. T., Herbert, I. P., & Seal, W. (2011). Shared service centers and professional employability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 241–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rulke, D. L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2000). Distribution of knowledge, group network structure, and group performance. Management Science, 46(5), 612–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Dickenson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In R. J. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 3–29). Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50(3), 540–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, C. S., & Ahuja, M. K. (2006). Are all distributed teams the same? Differentiating between temporary and ongoing distributed teams. Small Group Research, 37(6), 662–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, J. E., Houlette, M. A., & Yeagley, E. L. (2006). Decision performance and diversity structure: Comparing faultlines in convergent, crosscut, and racially homogeneous groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, V., & Brenner, W. (2010). Characteristics of shared service centers. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 4(3), 210–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, G. (2014). Public shared service centers: A theoretical and empirical analysis of US public sector organizations (Vol. 16). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer, L., & Duxbury, L. (2010). Conceptualizing and measuring the virtuality of teams. Information Systems Journal, 20(3), 267–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shemla, M., Meyer, B., Greer, L., & Jehn, K. A. (2014). A review of perceived diversity in teams: Does how members perceive their team’s composition affect team processes and outcomes? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M., & Ernst, H. (2014). Subjective distance and team collaboration in distributed teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 765-779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. C., Snell, S. A., Davison, S. C., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Use transnational teams to globalize your company. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 50–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soalheira, J., & Timbrell, G. (2014). What is shared services? In Shared services as a new organizational form (pp. 67–84). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sole, D., & Edmondson, A. (2002). Situated knowledge and learning in dispersed teams. British Journal of Management, 13(S2), S17–S34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, P., Brewster, C., & Harris, H. (2004). Globalizing human resource management. Routledge Global Human Resource Management Series. New York, USA: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32(11), 1492–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, E. M., & Bierly, P. E., III. (2009). An analysis of predictors of team satisfaction in product development teams with differing levels of virtualness. R&D Management, 39(5), 461–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starritt, N. (2002). Offloading the admin—An HR guide to outsourcing what you should know before embarking on the outsourcing route. In Human Resources London UMAN (pp. 48–53).

    Google Scholar 

  • Strübing, J. (2004). Grounded Theory. Zur sozialtheoretischen und epistemologischen Fundierung des Verfahrens der empirischen begründeten Theoriebildung. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suleiman, J., & Watson, R. T. (2008). Social loafing in technology-supported teams. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 17(4), 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swärd, A. (2016). Trust, reciprocity, and actions: The development of trust in temporary inter-organizational relations. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1841–1860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012a). Teams are changing—Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 2–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012b). On teams—Unifying themes and the way ahead. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 56–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenzer, H., & Pudelko, M. (2016). Media choice in multilingual virtual teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(4), 427–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher, S., & Patel, P. C. (2011). Demographic faultlines: A meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 969–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher, S. M., & Patel, P. C. (2012). Group faultlines: A review, integration, and guide to future research. Journal of Management, 38(4), 969–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher, S. M., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity research: The effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(3), 217–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, D. (1997). Measuring human resources: An overview of practice and a prescription for results. Human Resource Management, 36(3), 303–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, D., & Brockbank, W. (2005). The HR value proposition. Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valacich, J. S., Paranka, D., George, J. F., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1993). Communication concurrency and the new media a new dimension for media richness. Communication Research, 20(2), 249–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valacich, J. S., George, J. F., Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., & Vogel, D. R. (1994). Physical proximity effects on computer-mediated group idea generation. Small Group Research, 25(1), 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickery, S. K., Droge, C., Stank, T. P., Goldsby, T. J., & Markland, R. E. (2004). The performance implications of media richness in a business-to-business service environment: Direct versus indirect effects. Management Science, 50(8), 1106–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wageman, R., Gardner, H., & Mortensen, M. (2012a). Teams have changed: Catching up to the future. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 48–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wageman, R., Gardner, H., & Mortensen, M. (2012b). The changing ecology of teams: New directions for teams research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 301–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J. A., III. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, U., Lampen, L., & Syllwasschy, J. (1986). In-group inferiority, social identity and out-group devaluation in a modified minimal group study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson-Manheim, B. M., Chudoba, K. M., & Crowston, K. (2002). Discontinuities and continuities: A new way to understand virtual work. Information Technology & People, 15(3), 191–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, J., & Staples, D. S. (2006). Comparing virtual teams to traditional teams—An identification of new research opportunities. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 25, 181–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, J., & Wong, W. K. P. (2008). Comparing traditional and virtual group forms—Identity, communication and trust in naturally occurring project teams. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildman, J. L., Shuffler, M. L., Lazzara, E. H., Fiore, S. M., Burke, C. S., Salas, E., et al. (2012). Trust development in swift starting action teams: A multilevel framework. Group and Organization Management, 37(2), 137–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. (1998). A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., Harkins, S. G., & Latané, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrant to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolthuis, R. K., Hillebrand, B., & Nooteboom, B. (2005). Trust, contract and relationship development. Organization Studies, 26(6), 813–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander, L., Mockaitis, A. I., & Butler, C. L. (2012). Leading global teams. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 592–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander, L., Zettinig, P., & Mäkelä, K. (2013). Leading global virtual teams to success. Organizational Dynamics, 42(3 SI), 228–237.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cooperative Studies, Berlin School of Economics and Law, University of Applied Sciences, Berlin, Germany

    Thomas Afflerbach

Authors
  1. Thomas Afflerbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Afflerbach .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Afflerbach, T. (2020). Theory: Challenges for Cooperation. In: Hybrid Virtual Teams in Shared Services Organizations. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34300-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation