posted on 2016-12-19, 05:55authored byKendall Herbert
Global virtual
teams (GVTs) are a valuable means to boost cross-geographical collaboration
allowing organisations to benefit from worldwide talent pools, combining
diverse skill, knowledge and expertise for superior innovation. However, those
working in this environment are challenged by the added intricacies of working
virtually between nations, cultures and time zones. Despite the increasing
prevalence of GVTs, research on the conditions releasing the powerful potential
of GVT innovation is a shortcoming in the literature. Thus, the primary aim of
this study is to explore how GVTs operating virtually across national bounds
can make positive use of their diversity through shared leadership to realise
advanced innovation. Then, because the existing innovation literature typifies
popular fallacy that innovation will always lead to positive outcomes, this
study also seeks to provide empirical evidence of the relationship between GVT
innovation and effectiveness. In efforts to undertake exploration of the
relationship between diversity and GVT innovation van Knippenberg, De Dreu, and
Homan’s (2004) categorisation-elaboration model (CEM) of team diversity is
drawn upon. This model facilitates opportunity to adequately account for both
the positive and negative effects diversity may have on team performance
outcomes. It is hypothesised that shared leadership will mediate the
relationship between diversity and GVT innovation, though it is expected that
diversity may create relational challenges limiting cohesion and the occurrence
of lateral influence among team members, hindering shared leadership and
consequently innovation. To understand how the challenges of diversity can be
negated, the moderating roles of cultural intelligence (CQ), asynchronous
communication and cognitive trust on the mediated cultural diversity-innovation
relationship are investigated.
Empirical data were collected from a survey of 55 working
GVTs, comprised of 438 team members across 50 countries. Additional data were
collected from 53 supervisors on GVT effectiveness. As expected, results reveal
a negative mediated relationship between cultural diversity and GVT innovation
(through shared leadership), despite a strong and positive relationship between
shared leadership and GVT innovation. GVT CQ and cognitive trust are both found
to moderate the mediated relationship between cultural diversity and GVT
innovation (through shared leadership). However, albeit favourable influence
from cognitive trust on the diversity-shared leadership path and CQ on the
shared leadership-innovation path, the relationship between diversity and
shared leadership remains negative, and thus so too does the overall mediated
relationship. Additionally, a positive relationship between GVT innovation and
effectiveness is found, confirming the appropriateness of innovation as a
positive team outcome. The results highlight several contributions to both
research and practice. Most broadly, the integrative-moderated mediation model
developed and analysed addresses incongruities in diversity research and
provides more detailed insights into the complex interaction effects explaining
the innovative process in GVTs. This further builds on the analysis of group
diversity advanced in the CEM. The findings of this research also offer several
future research directions for the continued development of GVT, diversity,
shared leadership and team innovation literatures