Content uploaded by Sarah Kellermann
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sarah Kellermann on Apr 01, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 1
1
Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration
Cultures
Introduction
In our current world, globalization, technological progress and demographic change lead to
changes in values and preferences on the labor market and spurred the evolution of what be-
5
came known as Industry 4.0. Companies have realized that in order to stay competitive, they
need to become much more flexible and agile to an increasingly complex and constantly chang-
ing environment strongly influenced by these three “megatrends” (Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2017). Thus, they are continuously searching for process,
product and organizational innovation (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Or-
10
ganization (UNESCO), 2018, p. 21) and for employees who are capable of acting successfully un-
der these conditions. In the light of digitalization and globalization, contact between individuals
from all over the world and thus with different cultural backgrounds, intensifies. Multinational
organizations, earlier posting employees abroad as short- or medium-term experts, nowadays
refrain from the concept of expatriates as it involves high costs for the sender organization
15
(Clegg & Gray, 2002). Instead, digital media can be used in an organizational context to bridge
distances and work across locations as multinational teams without the necessity of travelling or
even living abroad. In a study survey with more than 1,500 respondents from 80 countries, 85%
of the respondents reported being member of a “global virtual team” (RW3 CultureWizard, 2016,
p. 3), emphasizing digitalization’s impact on the work environment. Furthermore, 48% of the re-
20
spondents stated that more than half of their team members would be based outside their
home country (RW3 CultureWizard, 2016, p. 3). This suggests that team members often have dif-
fering cultural backgrounds. It is this cultural heterogeneity, which is perceived as the biggest
hurdle to productive team functioning (RW3 Culture Wizard, 2016, p. 4). This points towards a
misfit between the skills necessary for effective job execution and the skills employees and grad-
25
uates possess.
All in all, it seems that future work carries a challenge to collaborate in distributed interna-
tional teams through technology enhanced collaboration scenarios while at the same time
higher education might not be fit to equip graduates with the necessary skills to perform suc-
cessful in these environments (Ehlers, forthcoming). Therefore, our research attempts to shed
30
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 2
2
some light on the set of skills and competences future employees must be equipped with. Spe-
cifically, we ask: How do the megatrends identified above affect skill demand? Which factors
have led to the skill gap? In addition, which skills are necessary for future graduates and employ-
ees to working effectively in this globalized, digitalized world?
To address these questions, this paper aims to define a basic research framework, which
35
identifies factors that are underlying actors’ abilities to act successfully in distributed work envi-
ronments using technology for collaboration. Sources come from prior own and recent desk re-
search of current state of the art research in the field. The framework will thus comprise those
competences, which in a digital and global collaboration culture have important influence on
successful and effective work relations and task fulfillment. In a first step, we therefore need to
40
a) identify scenarios for ‘digital global collaboration’ (DGC) (Chapter 2) , and b) suggest measures
for ‘success’ and ‘effective task achievement’ in DGC (Chapter 2). In a second step, we c) analyze
possible factors, elements of influence, as well as competences necessary for successful achieve-
ment (Chapter 3) and, finally, d) suggest relations between them and work out their interde-
pendencies (Chapter 4). The latter will be done through the construction of a set of propositions,
45
which relates the previously defined elements.
Characteristics of Digital Global Collaborations (DGC) – Future Work Cultures
This chapter seeks to define Digital Global Collaborations (DGC), and elaborate on the elements
that make up DGC scenarios by means of a framework. Further, we will present factors that have
led to the emergence of this new working format, and provide an overview of common chal-
50
lenges that can be deduced from the framework, highlighting culture’s impact as it has been
identified as a major challenge (see previous chapter). We conclude by providing some proposals
on what can be understood by “achievement” or “success” in DGC.
We define DGC as an arrangement of geographically dispersed individuals, usually with dif-
ferent cultural backgrounds (Taras et al., 2013) who use electronic communication media to
55
overcome geographic, temporal and organizational boundaries to achieve a common goal
(Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017; Gibbs, Siuven, & Boyraz, 2016; Hambley, O'Neill, & Kline, 2007; Powell,
Piccoli, and Ives, 2004). These characteristics resemble the group’s purpose in so far as it either
brings together experts from different locations, organizations or professions, or a given task is
short term and thus, relocation would be undesirable (Cramton, 2002, p. 192). Dulebohn and
60
Hoch note that the central distinguishing feature of a DGC is the geographic dispersion, as co-
located teams may also use technologly-mediated communication (2017, p. 572). Note that we
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 3
3
prefer to refer to DGC as opposed to virtual or global virtual teams, thereby adopting Schein and
Schein’s line of argumentation acknowledging that the participants may pursue the same goal
for a project’s duration, but they may not necessarily perceive of each other as a “team” (2018,
65
p. 83). Furthermore, it needs to be stressed that in the light of ongoing globalization processes
and organization’s internationalization efforts, such work collaborations become increasingly
multinational (Burke, Shufler, Salas, & Gelfand, 2010). Past research has often treated multicul-
tural teams and virtual teams separately, leading to two relatively separate streams of research
that disregards this important intersection (Hinds, Liu, & Lyon, 2011). Hence, our understanding
70
of DGC includes the assumption of culturally diverse actors, connected via some sort of infor-
mation and communication media (ICM).
There is increasing relevance for DGC as demonstrated by a rising number of organizations
establishing DGC (RW3 Culture Wizard, 2016, p. 3), going hand-in-hand with a growing body of
literature around this topic. For instance, Gibbs, Sivunen, and Boyraz (2016) analyzed 265 articles
75
from 15 years of research dealing with different issues common to DGC. What are benefits of this
relatively new type of work arrangement? To answer this question, we need to investigate the
processes in the background that have triggered the emergence of DGC. Their growth is attribut-
able to new formats of information and communication technology that have enabled globaliza-
tion, linking people from all over the world (Dávideková, Greguš, & Dávideková, 2016). Globaliza-
80
tion has also increased the availability of products from all over the world leading to intensified
competitive pressure and organizations’ needs for rapid product development and innovation, as
well as the necessity to improve their networking abilities across different locations, thus connect-
ing dispersed experts (Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017). In this heavily competitive and agile environment,
DGC seems to be a promising working format: Different time zones enable continuous productiv-
85
ity, travel costs or costs for relocation can be saved, knowledge is shared across geographically
dispersed units and sites, to name only a few benefits (Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017, p. 569). In order
to gain a more systematic view on the constituents and factors in the DGC context, we conducted
a literature review as basis for the below framework. The framework categorizes a DGC’s opera-
tional space along its actors, the task the actors are working on, the ICM involved, and factors that
90
determine the DGC’s operational space.1
1 Note that the list below is not exhaustive. Still, we believe that the framework provides a first overview of the
complex context in which DGC are embedded.
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 4
4
Dimensions Components Existing Research
DGC
actors
- Actor roles
- Communica-
tion styles
- Cultural
background
- Cultural diver-
sity
- Involvement
- Knowledge
- Lifecycle
- Media choice
- Size
- Skills
- Trust
Bell & Kozlowski, 2002 (lifecycle, actor roles); Dekker, Rutte, & van den Berg, 2008
(national culture); Dimmick, Ramirez, Wan, & Lin, 2007 (size); Eisenberg & Mattarelli,
2016 (cultural diversity); Hardin, Fuller, & Davison, 2007 (cultural diversity); Paul, He,
& Dennis, 2018 (cultural diversity, trust); Herbsleb &
Mockus, 2003 (trust);
Holmstrom, Conchúir, Agerfalk, & Fitzgerald, 2006 (socio-cultural distance); Jar-
venpaa & Leidner, 1999 (trust, communication behaviors); Jarvenpaa, Knoll, &
Leidner, 1998 (trust, knowledge, skills); Klitmøller & Lauring, 2013 (cultural distance);
Kramer, Shuffler, & Feitosa, 2017 (cultural diversity); Lauring & Selmer, 2010
(knowledge, skills); Lauring & Selmer, 2012 (communication styles, cultural diversity);
Leenders, Engelen, & Kratzer, 2003 (communication styles); Lipnack & Stamps, 1999
(knowledge, skills); Maznevski
& Chudoba, 2000 (communication patterns, size,
knowledge; media choice); Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001 (involvement);
Shachaf, 2008 (communication, cultural diversity); Straub & Karahanna, 1998 (media
choice); Suchan & Hayzak, 2001 (communication)
DGC task
- Complexity
- Coordination
- Content
- Interdepen-
dence
Bell & Kozlowski, 2002 (task complexity); Faraj & Sproull, 2000 (task complexity); Her-
tel, Konradt, Orlikowski, 2004 (interdependence); Massey, Montoya-Weiss, & Hung,
2003 (coordination); Maynard, Mathieu, Rapp, & Gilson, 2012 (interdepend-
ence);Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000 (task complexity); Montoya-Weiss, Massey, &
Song, 2001 (task content)
DGC ICM
- Interactivity
- Media format
- Synchronicity
Bell & Kozlowski, 2002 (temporal distribution, synchronicity); Dekker, Rutte, van den
Berg, 2008 (interaction); Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001 (asynchronous com-
munication); Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999 (asynchronous and synchronous ICM);
Klitmøller & Lauring, 2013 (media format);
Gibbs, 2009 (types of interaction);
Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000 (face-to-face communication media); Dimmick, Ramirez,
Wan, & Lin, 2007 (media format); Holmstrom, Conchúir, Agerfalk, & Fitzgerald, 2006
(synchronicity, interacitivity)
DGC
outcomes
- Commitment
- Effectiveness
- Efficacy
- Goal
achievement
- Knowledge
sharing
- Satisfaction
Alavi & Tiwana, 2002 (knowledge management); Dekker, Rutte, & van den Berg,
2008 (satisfaction, team goal achievement); Eisenberg & Mattarelli, 2016
(knowledge sharing); Hardin, Fuller, & Davison, 2007 (efficacy)Jarvenpaa & Leidner,
1999 (goal achievement, effectiveness); Klitmøller & Lauring, 2013 (knowledge shar-
ing); knowledge creation, commitment); Massey, Montoya-Weiss, & Hung, 2003 (ef-
fectiveness, goal achievement); Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000 (effectiveness); Mon-
toya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001 (effectivenss, goal achievement); Prasad &
Akhilesh, 2002 (goal achievement, satisfaction); Shachaf, 2008 (effectiveness, satis-
faction)
DGC
conditions
- Boundary span-
ning
- Duration
- Geographical
Dispersion
Bell & Kozlowski, 2002 (boundary spanning); Cascio & Shurygailo, 2003 (duration);
Dafoulas & Macaulay, 2002 (boundary spanning); Dafoulas & Macaulay, 2002 (geo-
graphical dispersion); Holmstrom, Conchúir, Agerfalk, & Fitzgerald, 2006 (temporal,
geo-graphical distance); Leenders, Engelen, & Kratzer, 2003 (boundary spanning);
Shachaf, 2008 (boundary spanning); Wong & Burton, 2000 (duration)
Table 1. Framework for DGC analyses
The overview further serves to identify potential fields for research as it allows to combine differ-95
ent dimensions and different components of the dimensions to explore the field in its complexity.
From the above dimensions, several potential hurdles arise. In the case of DGC, the common
problems of co-located collaborations such as misalignment of individual team actors’ goals, a
lack of clear team objectives, missing skills, among others, are complemented by DGC-specific
challenges (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001). For instance, temporal asynchrony (a DGC condition
100
component) leads to increased response times and reduces chances for real-time exchange (a
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 5
5
DGC ICM component), thus often leading to inefficient delays (Holmstrom, Conchúir, Agerfalk, &
Fitzgerald, 2006; Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001). Regarding the actor dimension, DGC
often face difficulties creating and maintaining trust among a group of people that often do not
know and have never met each other and among whom informal conversations that would serve
105
to establish closer work relationships take place only seldom (Herbsleb & Mockus, 2003; Jar-
venpaa & Leidner, 1999). Additionally, language and communication difficulties pose another
hurdle (Shachaf, 2008; Suchan & Hayzak, 2001). Yet, these latter difficulties are often deeper
rooted, usually not resulting from missing vocabulary or a grammatically incorrect sentence, but
reveal upon careful analysis, specificities of a DGC actor’s cultural background. It is this “deep-
110
level diversity” (Chidambaram, 2005) – differences not directly observable, such as values, atti-
tudes and experience – that pose major challenges to DGC. We adapt Maznevski and colleagues’
(2002, p. 276) understanding of culture as the set of deep level values shared by an identifiable
group of people. The core element of this definition are values2, which serve as guidelines for
any human behavior, defining what is wrong or right and reducing the number of available inter-
115
pretations for situations and behaviors (Baldwin et al., 2006; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961;
Flechsig, 2000). Though not directly observable, values’ influence manifests in behavioral pat-
terns, verbal and nonverbal communications, and exchange of personal information (Harrison,
Price, Gavin, and Florey, 2002), thus impacting everyday business as well.3 Although culture has
been recognized as an important factor for DGC, Gibbs and his colleagues (2016) reviewing more
120
than 260 research articles on this topic, criticize that the vast majority of studies do not directly
measure it. Additionally, if culture was measured, too often a DGC actor’s nationality was taken
as a proxy for its culture (Gibbs, Sivunen, & Boyraz, 2016)4. This contradicts the notion of culture
as a deep-level differentiation feature, pretending that someone’s passport – some surface level
element of diversity – would reveal one’s inner cultural compass. Moreover, the few studies that
125
have used more complex measures for culture, usually adapt Hofstede’s approach (e.g. Decker,
Rutte, & van den Berg, 2008; Hardin, Fuller, & Davison, 2007; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 2000;
2 In their literature review of “key definitions” (p. 14) Straub and colleagues (2002) found that culture defini-
tions can be categorized into three different groups: definitions based on shared values, definitions based on
problem solving and general all-encompassing definitions. They concluded that the first type – definitions
based on shared values – is the “most common view” in the literature (p. 14). See for example Hofstede (1980),
Kluckhohn (1951), and Schwartz (1999, 2006).
3 For a comprehensive review of culture’s impact on international business issues see for instance Kirkman,
Lowe, and Gibson (2006).
4 For instance, see Paul, He, & Dennis (2018), Chamakiotis, Dekonick, and Panteli (2013) or Ruppel, Gong and
Tworoger (2013).
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 6
6
Klitmøller & Lauring, 2013). Hofstede conceptualized culture in terms of different cultural dimen-
sions (see table 2), which serve to cluster cultural groups along these, thereby revealing their dif-
fering “mental programming” (1991). Although Hofstede deserves much credit for his pioneering
130
work, there is much concern regarding for example the dimensions’ completeness, the sample of
IBM employees, probably not representative for most countries, or the fact that the research
was not based on theoretical conceptions (Drogendijk & Slogan, 2006; House, Wright, & Aditya,
1997). Table 2 provides an overview of culture models used in cross-cultural research to differ-
entiate between different cultural groups. Although there are many more cultural models (see
135
e.g. Richter (2014) for a review), the below table summarizes the three approaches that can be
applied to different cultural contexts and serve for cross-cultural comparisons (Richter, 2014).
Table 2. Universally applicable models of culture for cross-cultural research purposes
As the present paper’s aim is to shed some light on the emerging phenomenon of DGC culture,
which, as we will argue later, is strongly infused by different types of cultures (national, organiza-
140
tional, work culture) and maybe other factors, these models provide a good basis for different
approaches. From our point of view, however, given the critique regarding Hofstede’s model and
the fact that Trompenaars and Hampden Turner’s model was suggested to have rather vague dis-
criminatory power regarding its dimensions (Richter, 2014), we adopt Schwartz’s view of culture
as shared value orientations. His conceptualization was suggested to overcome many of the afore-
145
mentioned issues surrounding Hofstede’s as well as Trompenaars and Hampden Turner’s concep-
tualizations (Drogendijk & Slogan, 2006; Schwartz, 1994).
According to the Theory of Cultural Value Orientations, culture derives from three basic human
issues that confront all societies (Schwartz, 1999, 2006). These issues can be addressed in two,
respectively three different ways, leading to Schwartz’s culture model comprising of seven value
150
orientations that are arranged along three value dimensions (1999, pp. 26–28; 2006, pp. 140–
142). Each value dimension comprises of a different set of adjacent values, as depicted in Table 3.
Model Dimensions Author
Cultural Value
Dimensions
Power Distance Index, Uncertainty Avoidance Index, Individual-
ism vs. Collectivism, Masculinity vs. Femininity, Long-term vs.
Short-term Orientation
Hofstede (1980)
Cultural Busi-
ness Diversity
Universalism vs. Particularism, Communitariansim vs. Individual-
ism, Neutral vs. Emotional, Diffuse vs. Specific, Achievement vs.
Ascription, Sequential vs. Synchronic, Internal vs. External con-
trol
Trompenaars &
Hampden-Turner
(1997)
Cultural Value
Orientations
Embeddedness vs. Intellectual/Affective Autonomy, Hierarchy vs.
Egalitarianism, Mastery vs. Harmony
Schwartz
(1999, 2006)
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 7
7
Societal Issue
Value
orientation
Values
Individual’s relation to
the group
Embed-
dedness
respect tradition, forgiveness, obedience, politeness, cleanliness, de-
votion, wisdom, self-discipline, social order, moderateness, honoring
elders, protecting public image, family security, national security, re-
ciprocation of favors
Intellectual
Autonomy
broadmindedness, freedom, creativity, curiosity
Affective
Autonomy
enjoying life, exciting life, varied life, pleasure
Management of social
interdependencies
and constraints for re-
sponsible behavior
Egalitarianism accept my portion in life, helpfulness, honesty, social justice, responsi-
bility, equality, loyalty
Hierarchy
humble, authority, wealth, social power
Group’s relation to the
natural and social en-
vironment
Mastery
capable, successful, ambitious, independent, influential, social recog-
nition, choosing own goals, daring
Harmony
environmental protection, peaceful world, beautiful world, unity with
nature
Table 3. Schwartz’s Cultural Value Orientations and associated values.
To validate his theory, Schwartz conducted a survey with over 35,000 respondents in 49 nations
(Schwartz, 1999) and 73 countries in his 2006-study, which resembled the seven cultural orienta-
155
tions. This lends strong empirical support for the Theory of Cultural Value Orientations, supporting
the notion that different groups of people usually living in some geographical proximity share a
common cultural value orientation (Schwartz, 2006).
Because of the above, we can derive that if DGC actors have different cultural backgrounds
(national as well as organizational), the potential of diverging cultural value orientation’s is rising.
160
These diverging orientations can potentially lead to coordination and communication challenges
and therefore are performance-influencing factors (e.g. Kayworth & Leidner, 2000; Maznevski &
Chudoba, 2001; Sarker & Sahay, 2002), but when handled effectively, also reveal high potential
(e.g. Schmidt, Montoya-Weiss, & Massey, 2001). Therefore, culture is particularly interesting in a
DGC context.
165
Before we address the issue of necessary competences for effective DGC, we first aim at
shedding some more light, and provide some proposals regarding a fuller understanding of po-
tential forms of “successful” performance in the DGC context.
Table 1 has given a first overview on the constitutive dimensions for DGC and related them
to performance indicators from the literature. It is shown that many different measures have
170
been studied, some that focus on “traditional” performance measures such as goal achievement,
whilst others are more concerned with learning processes such as knowledge creation, whereas
a third category focusses on individuals’ socio-psychological outcomes such as satisfaction. We
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 8
8
intend to broaden this list taking Spitzberg’s (1989) understanding of effectiveness as our start-
ing point: For him, effectiveness refers to the achievement of valued objects. Though rather
175
vague, this understanding serves as a good starting point for a more encompassing conceptual-
ization, raising the question of a) what are these valued objects, and b) who values them?
Adopting an economic perspective points to three types of potential “beneficiaries”: the indi-
vidual, the DGC, and the organization(s) for which the DGC works. At the individual-level, satisfac-
tion and commitment, but also perceived personal performance are among the most common
180
positive outcomes describing successful DGC activities (Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017; Powell, Piccoli, &
Ives, 2004). At the team level, outcomes such as the degree to which set performance goals were
achieved is often considered an indicator for successful DGC (Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017). Addition-
ally, from an organization’s viewpoint, the success of an individual actor being committed to the
organization and his work will be positive for an organization as well; the same holds true for the
185
DGC’s achievement. If the DGC meets its performance goals, the organization benefits, too, as it
contributes to the achievement of organizational goals.
Adding an additional perspective, Kormos and Csizér’s Intercultural Contact Theory (2007) that
builds on Allport’s Contact Hypothesis (1958), states that contact of individuals with different cul-
tural backgrounds can lead to favorable changes in individuals’ attitudes and behaviors towards
190
one another, thereby reducing prejudice. We argue that apart from the rather “hard success fac-
tors” presented above, this adds another valuable socio-psychological dimension to our discus-
sion. Reducing prejudice will promote a favorable atmosphere among DGC actors, thus increasing
the likelihood for successful task completion. However, we argue that these contact situations
within DGC, can also have positive effects on individual actors’ skills. As DGC actors deal with in-
195
dividuals from different cultural backgrounds, they can develop new ways of interacting with each
other, broadening their horizons by changing perspectives and amplifying the set of available in-
terpretations. In a similar vein, one could assume that through contact situations with digital me-
dia, individuals get used to them and develop more effective ways on how to use them in a learn-
ing by doing fashion (Peters, 2000).
200
From our point of view and as the literature review (previous chapter) suggests, these learning
outcomes and especially their subsequent consequences for future DGC and individual achieve-
ment yield a promising area for further investigation. The point we intend to make here is that
outcomes of DGC and what is perceived of as successful can adopt various forms depending on
the respective viewpoint as well as on what is considered a valuable objective.
205
Having a clearer understanding of DGC, we will proceed by firstly identifying skills necessary
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 9
9
for future graduates and employees in general, and secondly, highlight two skills, which are from
our point of view, the most important for successful DGC activity.
Factors, Skills and Competences for DGC Culture
As the present paper’s aim is to shed some light on the megatrends’ influence on skill demand, 210
this chapter builds on theoretical conceptions from the literature to gain a clearer picture of sys-
tems and processes involved, which provide an explanation for the skill gap’s root. In a second
step, we will use our framework from the previous chapter to identify two skills, which we consider
vitally important for Digital Global Collaborations (DGC).
In order to understand the influence the megatrend changes in the global systems environ-
215
ment have on DGC, we adopt Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological systems framework. This per-
spective allows for a multi-level inspection of the consequences on different, yet interrelated
systems. Being surrounded by a variety of microsystems, such as his/ her family members, the
individual forms the nucleus. The sum of micro-systems together comprise the individual’s
mesosystem. The norms, laws, economic structures and culture of the individual’s society char-
220
acterize the macrosystem. Bronfenbrenner’s original model, does not allow for situating changes
coming into the system, such as the three megatrends. Drakenberg (2004) added a fifth level to
the ecosystems framework called the ex-macrosystem that can be interpreted as the frame-
work’s “international level” (Drakenberg & Malmgren, 2013, p. 120). Adopting this view, Chris-
tensen (2016) also locates globalization within the ex-macrosystem, understanding it as the in-
225
teraction and mutual influence of political, economic, social, technological and environmental
factors beyond national borders (Christensen, 2016, p. 25). We adopt Drakenberg’s fifth system
as it serves to represent our research context more properly, enabling us to situate the mega-
trends at the level of the outmost layer, which induces changes on the system levels nested
within it.
230
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems framework in its extended version (Drakenberg, 2004)
provides a helpful approach to break down the complexity of operating interrelated systems into
their respective dimensions and shed some light onto how they influence each other. However,
the framework mainly serves as a static snapshot of a given system that does not provide any
further explanation on how changes within one system, affect other systems. As our aim is to
235
understand how global megatrends will affect competence demand, we adopt Ashby’s Law of
Requisite Variety (1956) – a basic law of cybernetics – that provides a helpful explanation for
change and adaptation processes within the framework. The law states that whenever a system
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 10
10
has to cope with highly complex and fast changing environments, the acting system must be able
to organize the same complexity within it. The original state of the system is an ordered state as
240
opposed to a state of chaos. The system will remain in this ordered state as long as internal
changes and changes of the environment can be balanced by the system itself, that is, as long as
the system retains its attractor. An attractor refers to stable periodical dynamics a system aims
at, thus regulating the direction and intensity of a system’s self-organization (Kriz, 1997). If a sys-
tem can no longer manage changes by means of its current attractor, it will search for a new at-
245
tractor thereby entering a state of chaos characteristic of the transition period from one ordered
state to another. Leaving the status quo enables the system to adapt to external demands
thereby self-organizing according to the changed environment (Ellebracht, Lenz, Osterhold, &
Schäfer, 2009, p. 18).
In our concrete example of DGC and the skill gap, we argue that changes induced by the ex-
250
macrosystem introduce new attractors at the macro-, meso-, and microsystems. For instance, dig-
italization has led to changes on the macrolevel, such that a new digital infrastructure becomes
mandatory or new laws are required. At the mesosystem, organizations will try to adapt to the
new circumstances posed by the changes on the ex-macro- and the macrosystem, which will re-
semble in terms of changed values, structures and management styles (Ehlers, forthcoming). This
255
also leads to new forms of work arrangements such as DGC. On the level of the individual, these
changes demand higher self-organization competences, in order for individuals to adapt fast and
flexibly to the changing environments (Ehlers, forthcoming).
To understand which set of competences will be necessary for individuals to be successful in
this changing work environment, Ehlers (forthcoming) conducted the “Future Skills Study”. The
260
qualitative study examined eleven advanced, networked and agile organizations5 through in-
depth interviews, revealing that organizations’ needs for self-organization capabilities of their in-
dividual actors are indeed growing when the environment’s complexity rises. This shifts the focus
from disciplinary knowledge to another skill set in which self-organization is a major underlying
element and to which Ehlers (forthcoming) refers as “future skills”. These skills can be subdivided
265
into three major categories based on their respective frame of reference (see figure 1): individual
development-related skills (such as self-efficacy, self-management), individual object-related skills
(such as digital literacy, agility) and individual organization-related future skills (e.g. cooperation
5 These companies won the “Dual Partner Award” (http://www.dhbw.de/dualer-partner-award.html), an
award that prized organizations for their outstanding programs supporting their employees’ competence de-
velopment.
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 11
11
skills, sense making). Whereas these agile organizations in an attempt to self-organize towards the
changes, have designed new competence models and learning environments where future skills
270
are actively developed, organizational representatives also report that – from their point of view
– the focus of higher education institutions would remain on equipping their students with disci-
plinary knowledge. The consequence is visible as the earlier mentioned skill gap, further exempli-
fied by an OECD study reporting on a significant mismatch between the demand and supply of
skills (2016).
275
280
285
Deming (2017) reports on a similar set of skills, comprising of the ability to communicate, work in
teams, solve problems and self-organize. The OECD adds that digital skills will also play a key role
in tomorrow’s work environments (2017).
For the context of DGC, we use our framework (chapter 2) to identify competences we view
as especially crucial for successful DGC achievement. To exemplify what is meant by each com-
290
petence, we propose one model for each of the competences that we believe captures the main
elements for successful DGC performance (see table 4).6
Table 4. Proposed relevant competences embedded in the DGC framework
6 Though we will highlight the importance of two specific competences, it is by no means our aim to imply that
the other skills and competences identified earlier would not be important.
DGC dimension Necessary Skill(s) & Competence(s) Model
Actors
DC; IC
Ferrari (2012); Deardorff (2006)
ICM
DC
Ferrari (2012)
Task
DC; Job-related skills and knowledge, pro-
cedural knowledge
Ferrari (2012)
Outcome
DC; IC; Job-related skills and knowledge,
procedural knowledge
Ferrari (2012); Deardorff (2006)
Conditions
Cannot be influenced by DGC actor’s skills
Figure 1. Future Competences (source: Ehlers, forthcoming)
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 12
12
As regards the actors involved in a DGC, individuals need to be aware of potential hurdles resulting
from cultural diversity for instance. We have argued earlier that culture (national, organizational,
295
work culture) specifies which values will be important to individuals, and thus influences behavior
(Baldwin et al., 2006; Flechsig, 2000; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Smircich, 1983). The compe-
tence necessary to deal appropriately with culturally distinct individuals is referred to as intercul-
tural competence (IC). Deardorff defines it as “one’s ability to communicate effectively and appro-
priately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes”
300
(2004, p. 194). Her Process Model of IC comprises of six main dimensions:
• attitudes (respect, openness, curiosity, discovery),
• knowledge (cultural self-awareness, deep cultural knowledge, sociolinguistic awareness),
• inter- and intrapersonal skills (to listen, observe, and evaluate; to analyze, interpret, and re-
late),
305
• internal (informed frame of reference shift) and
• external outcomes (effective and appropriate communication and behavior in an intercultural
situation) (Deardorff, 2006, p. 256).
Surprisingly, none of the above studies identified IC as an important competence for the future.
IC, however, accounts for communication competence by means of knowledge and external out-
310
comes (one of the future skills), adding a cultural layer to it, which is necessary for the DGC sce-
nario as actors have differing cultural backgrounds. Further, the abilities mentioned in Deardorff’s
model point to a high degree to self-organization skills. The individual will only be interculturally
competent, if he/ she continuously reflects his/ her own behavior and the behavior of others and
adapt his/ her attitudes, knowledge, and skills accordingly. This resembles for instance in Ehlers’s
315
future skills model in terms of the “competence to reflect” (see figure 1).
As Information and Communication Media (ICM) is involved in DGC activities, we argue that
DGC actors need to possess digital competence (DG). DC however, does not merely refer to indi-
vidual’s capability of using different types of media (technical operations). A review of different
DC models conducted by Ferrari for the European Commission, resulted in a model of seven dif-
320
ferent yet interrelated competence dimensions:
• information management (e.g. identify, locate, organize information),
• collaboration (e.g. link and interact constructively),
• communication and sharing (using different communication tools, taking into account privacy,
safety, and netiquette),
325
• creation of content and knowledge (e.g. constructing new knowledge),
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 13
13
• ethics and responsibility (e.g. being aware of legal frames),
• evaluation and problem-solving (e.g. solving problems through digital means) and
• technical operations (using technology to perform tasks) (Ferrari, 2012, p. 4).
This concept of DC refers to collaboration and communication competence as well, identifying
330
them as key competences for DGC activity and providing further specification of their configura-
tion in a setting where actors will communicate and collaborate with each other using ICM. As
depicted in Table 4, we believe that DC not only plays a role for the ICM-dimension, but also for
actors, which is supported by Maznevski & Chudoba’s study (2000) suggesting that DC will, for
example, define actors’ media choices.
335
For a DGC’s task, we argue that it demands DC, as ICM may be chosen depending on the re-
spective task’s complexity (Hollingshead, McGrath, & O’Connor, 1993) or its content (Shachaf,
2008). In our opinion, other necessary competences involved, will most likely not differ substan-
tially from those skills a co-located team needs to possess, which we refer to in terms of job-re-
lated skills and knowledge, as well as procedural knowledge.
340
For a DGC’s outcome, it has been shown in the context of multinational teams that higher
intercultural communication competence (a competence related to IC, but focusing on the com-
municational aspect of intercultural encounters) can explain 20% of the variance in a team’s per-
formance (Matveev & Nelson, 2004). Thus, we assume that actors should possess IC to increase
the likelihood of successful performance. However, no evidence was found that would point to-
345
wards a positive effect of DC on DGC performance. Still, it seems logic to assume that when an
actor lacks one or more skills identified by the DC model, successful collaboration will not be
possible, as the working process is situated within a digital context.
Finally, conditions refer to restraining factors, which define a DGC’s duration, or which
boundaries (organizational, temporal, geographical) will be crossed by DGC activity. Thus we sug-
350
gest that they will not demand any specific competences from DGC actors.
Given that DGC activities are a group effort, collaboration and communication competences
are important skills, too. However, DC and IC both entail specifications of these competences in
the special context of DGC (Berry, 2011). Therefore, we view DC and IC as the major two compe-
tences necessary for successful DGC activities, acting as meta-competences affecting communi-
355
cation and collaboration competences. The presented framework allows to breakdown a DGC’s
complex context into several dimensions. As such, it has served to relate these with compe-
tences that are – from our point of view – necessary competences for successful group perfor-
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 14
14
mance. Still, to capture the phenomenon of DGC as the complex phenomenon it is, it will be nec-
essary to examine other competences’ influence for the respective dimensions as well.
360
Suggesting a Proposition Framework for DGC Cultures
In the previous chapter, we have identified the megatrends as key influence for the changed com-
petence demand and found two competences that we believe will be key for future successful
DGC activity (chapter 3). Moreover, it was argued that culture, as a phenomenon operating at
various levels, deserves special attention (chapter 2). This chapter seeks to connect the frame-
365
work’s dimensions firstly, with Intercultural and Digital Competence (IC and DC), and secondly,
with culture (see table 5). Thereby we intend to stimulate further research, exploring the inter-
section of these elements.
Table 5. Framework for suggested interrelations
Competences within DGC 370
Though there is empirical evidence that competences in general (Moy, 1999), and intercultural
competence in specific (Matveev & Milter, 2004) lead to increased performance in multicultural
teams, to our knowledge, there is no empirical research regarding intercultural competence’s (IC)
impact on DGC performance. Studies so far have focused on intercultural communication compe-
tence instead, a competence related to IC, but focusing on the communicational aspect of inter-
375
cultural encounters (e.g. Jarvenpaa, & Leidner, 1999; Matveev & Nelson, 2004). However, it seems
logic to assume from the evidence already existent that IC will also lead to positive outcomes on
DGC performance, as it fosters a group’s alignment (Matveev & Nelson, 2004).
Proposition 1: Actors’ IC will lead to increased DGC achievement.
Proposition Dimensions Suggested interrelation
1: Actors’ IC will lead to increased DGC
performance
Actors & Outcome IC + Outcome +
2: Actors’ DC will lead to increased DGC
performance
Actors & Outcome DC + Outcome +
3: Actors’ IC after the DGC activities will
be higher than before
Actors & Conditions Actor’s ICt < Actor’s ICt+1
4: Actors’ DC after the DGC activities will
be higher than before
Actors & Conditions Actor’s DCt < Actor’s DCt+1
5: For two DGC, the DGC with the
longer duration, all other factors being
equal, will perform better
Culture, Outcome &
Conditions
Outcome (DGCa) > Outcome (DGCb), if
t(DGC1) > t(DGC2)
6: DGC actors will value Intellectual Au-
tonomy.
Culture & Actors Actors Intellectual Autonomy
7: DGC actors will value Egalitarianism.
Culture & Actors
Actors Egalitarianism
8: DGC actors will value Mastery.
Culture & Actors
Actors Mastery
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 15
15
We suggest the same relation for Digital Competence (DC), arguing that only if individuals are 380
digitally competent, they will be able to use ICM effectively and for collaboration purposes, thus,
contributing to higher group achievement.
Proposition 2: Actors’ DC will lead to increased DGC achievement.
Further, as has been suggested (Chapter 2), achievement could also been measured in terms of
other factors, such as competence increases. So far, there is no empirical evidence to our
385
knowledge that would have tested, whether IC and DC have increased after a DGC’s task comple-
tion. However, there is some evidence for students’ IC increases after having been into contact
with foreigners (Peng & Wu, 2016). These findings, together with the Intercultural Contact Theory
(see chapter 2) suggest that actors’ IC will be higher after having worked in a DGC.
Proposition 3: Actors’ IC after the DGC activities will be higher than before.
390
However, this may be constrained by actor’s previous level of IC. One could argue that if an indi-
vidual has no IC at all, the mere exposure to people from different cultures will not result in
higher levels of IC, if the respective actor does not have the necessary prerequisites in terms of
attitudes, skills, and knowledge (Deardorff, 2006). The other extreme would be interesting as
well: If there is an actor who is already highly competent in terms of IC, is there a saturation level
395
of IC, such that after the DGC activities he/ she will not see any further IC increases? Therefore,
we ask:
Research question 1: How does an actors’ level of IC before engaging in a DGC activity effect
his/ her level after the activity?
The same may be true for DC, but given that there is no evidence supporting this notion, the fol-
400
lowing proposition is highly speculative:
Proposition 4: Actors’ DC after the DGC activities will be higher than before.
Here, we can ask the same as for IC regarding possible saturation effects and the previous level
of an actor’s DC.
Research question 2: How does an actors’ level of DC before engaging in a DGC activity effect
405
his/ her level after the activity?
Moreover, it has been shown that fostering team culture increases a group’s performance as team
cultures ensure more efficient and effective collaboration in an otherwise very loosely coupled
team (Peng & Wu, 2016). However, it takes time to build a culture (Deal & Peterson, 1990). Thus,
we suggest that
410
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 16
16
Proposition 5: For two DGC, the DGC with the longer duration, all other factors being equal,
will perform better.7
Still, we have not yet answered the question concerning the nature of a possible DGC culture.
415
The next section proposes some options.
Competences and DGC Culture
We have seen by means of the ecosystems framework and empirical support from Ehlers (forth-
coming) that organizations in an effort to stay competitive, adjust their organizational values (Eh-
lers, forthcoming), which leads to different competence models (Cheetham & Chivers, 1996; Sau-
420
ter & Staudt, 2016) within organizations and a need for the individual to develop a different set of
competences. According to Erpenbeck (2010), competence is built on knowledge, capabilities, and
qualifications, but in order to be competent, internalized values need to be linked with it. This is
down to values motivating action, as individuals perceive them as desirable goals (Schwartz, 2012).
Thus, in the light of changed competence demand, it is argued that the individual will not only
425
self-organize his/ her knowledge, capabilities, and qualifications towards the new demands, but
also he/ she needs to internalize a different set of values in order to develop a certain competence.
As values are the core of culture (Schwartz, 1999), and they further serve to transform knowledge,
capabilities, and qualifications into a competence (Erpenbeck, 2010), we can speculate about the
nature of a DGC culture given that we have identified DC and IC to be important competences for
430
DGC. Hence, to gain a clearer picture of the DGC culture, we need to find out which values form
the basis for DC and IC. Schwartz’s Cultural Value Orientations of Egalitarianism, Intellectual Au-
tonomy and Mastery seem promising in this regard. Intellectual Autonomy promotes values such
as broadmindedness and curiosity – elements that have been specified by Deardorff’s IC Model as
important attitudes for the development of IC (Deardorff, 2006). Thus, we suggest that
435
Proposition 6: DGC actors will value Intellectual Autonomy.
Moreover, Schwartz’s Egalitarianism value orientation is built upon responsibility and helpfulness,
and demands people to “internalize a commitment to cooperate and […] act for the benefit of
others as a matter of choice” (Schwartz, 2006, p. 140–141), which resemble in Ferrari’s DC model
as the collaboration sub-competences to “link and interact with others in a constructive way” (Fer-
440
rari, 2012, p. 4). Thus, we propose:
Proposition 7: DGC actors will value Egalitarianism.
7 Peng and Wu suggested similarly that “[t]he greater […] the cultivation of a common team culture; the higher
the performance of virtual teams with culturally and organizationally diverse members” (2000, p. 352).
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 17
17
Moreover, according to Schwartz, “ambition, success, […], and competence are especially im-
portant in mastery cultures” (Schwartz, 2006, p. 141). This describes individual’s and DGC’s gen-
eral motivation; they form a group of people in order to successfully achieve a prescribed task,
445
thereby relying on their competences. Hence, we suggest that:
Proposition 8: DGC actors will value Mastery.
If there was support for Propositions six to eight, this would lend further support for the notion
of values being competences’ cores on the one hand, as well as cores of culture on the other
hand, which would lend further support for the present paper’s idea of a conceptual bridge be-
450
tween Schwartz’s Cultural Value Dimensions and Erpenbeck’s concept of Competence.
Conclusion
Our starting point was that global processes change the way in which global organizational work
is structured, thus leading to new working formats such as Digital Global Collaborations (DGC).
To obtain a fuller understanding of important dimensions involved, we created a framework
455
(chapter 2) that allows for analyzing five different dimensions spanning a DGC’s scope of action
along its actors, who are working on a common task using ICM to achieve some outcome
thereby being restrained by certain conditions. Though a more comprehensive literature review
needs to be conducted to further enrich this first sketch, we believe that its early version pro-
vides a good starting point for future research, shedding some light on the complexity involved
460
in DGC research. Moreover, we introduced an overview of common problems DGC need to face,
and highlighted culture, which was found to be one of the major obstacles in DGC activity (RW3
Culture Wizard, 2016, p. 4). We presented a selection of culture models adequate for cross-cul-
tural research purposes, which are specifically well suited for addressing questions in a DGC con-
text, as they are applicable to different types of culture. Additionally, we highlighted some cri-
465
tique concerning the models. A separate section was dedicated to DGC’s achievement, thereby
proposing that further research should not only investigate outcomes from an economic or so-
cio-psychological perspective, but also focus more attention towards the circular fashion of com-
petence application and its parallel development.
After having gained a clearer picture of DGC’s context and specific challenges, chapter 3
470
aimed to shed some light on the root of these challenges, the skill gap. To explain its emergence,
we adopted an ecosystems perspective to gain a more detailed overview on involved systems.
Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety proved to be a fruitful explanation for how the three mega-
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 18
18
trends lead to an increased need of self-organization competences as resembled in recent re-
search findings (Ehlers, forthcoming). Having identified the megatrends as the source for the
475
changed competence demands, the skill gap’s root could be explained as a delayed reaction time
of less agile organizations and institutions to self-organize towards their changing environment.
Our developed framework proved helpful for recognizing IC and DC as especially relevant
competences for DGC. Dimensions of these two competences were further explicated, drawing
on models from the literature.
480
The last chapter aimed to shed some light on the intersection of DGC, IC, DC and culture pro-
posing avenues for further research along the actor, outcome and condition dimensions of DGC,
thereby establishing a link between culture and competences through values. We hope that the
present paper provides a helpful starting point for research regarding the complex phenomenon
of DGC.
485
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 19
19
Literature
Alavi, M., & Tiwana, A. (2002). Knowledge integration in virtual teams. The potential role of KMS. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(12), 1029–1037.
490
Allport, G. (1958). W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. New York: Wiley.
Baldwin, J. R., Faulkner, S. L., Hecht, M. L., & Lindsley, S. L. (Eds.). (2006). Redefining culture. Perspectives across
495
the disciplines. London: Routledge.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group &
Organization Management, 27(1), 14–49.
500
Berry, G. R. (2011). Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams: Understanding why traditional team skills are in-
sufficient. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 48(2), 186–206.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist,
32(7), 513–531.
505
Burke, C. S., Shuffler, M. L., Salas, E., & Gelfand, M. (2010). Multicultural teams. Critical team processes and
guidelines. Going Global: Practical Applications and Recommendations for HR and OD Professionals in the
Global Workplace, 27, 46–71.
Cascio, W .F., Shurygailo, S. (2003). E-Leadership and Virtual Teams. Organizational Dynamics, 31, 362–376.
510
Chamakiotis, P., Dekoninck, E. A., & Panteli, N. (2013). Factors influencing creativity in virtual design teams: An
interplay between technology, teams and individuals. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(3), 265–279.
Cheetham, G., & Chivers, G. (1996). Towards a holistic model of professional competence. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 20(5), 20–30.
515
Chidambaram, L. (2005, January). Diversity. Is there more than meets the eye? A longitudinal study of the im-
pact of technology support on teams with differing diversity. In System Sciences, 2005. HICSS'05. Proceedings of
the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences IEEE, 1–10.
520
Christensen, J. (2016). A Critical Reflection of Bronfenbrenners Development Ecology Model, Problems of Edu-
cation in the 21st Century. Retrieved on 09.11.2018 from https://muep.mau.se/bitstream/han-
dle/2043/20622/A%20Critical%20Reflection%20of%20Bronfenbr%20Dev%20Ecology%20ModelApril16.pdf?se-
quence=2%26isAllowed=y
525
Clegg, B., & Gray, S. J. (2002). Australian expatriates in Thailand: Some insights for expatriate management poli-
cies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(4), 598–623.
Cramton, C. D. (2002). Attribution in distributed work groups. Distributed Work, 191–212.
Dafoulas, G. & Macaulay, L. (2002). Investigating Cultural Differences in Virtual Software Teams. The Electronic
530
Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries (EJISDC) 7, 1–14.
Dávideková, M., Greguš, ml., & Dávideková, S. (2016). The Impact of Globalization on Team Composition. Vir-
tual and Local Team. In Globalization and Its Socio-Economic Consequences: 16th International Scientific Confer-
ence. Retrieved on 31.10.2018 from https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/311986283_The_Im-
pact_of_Globalization_on_Team_Composition_Virtual_and_Local_Team
535
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 20
20
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1990). The Principal's Role in Shaping School Culture. EDRS Publishing.
Deardorff, D. K. (2004). The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of
international education at institutions of higher education in the United States. Unpublished dissertation,
540
North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Retrieved on 10.10.2018, from https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/bit-
stream/handle/1840.16/5733/etd.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of in-
ternationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266.
545
Dekker, D. M., Rutte, C. G., & Van den Berg, P. T. (2008). Cultural differences in the perception of critical inter-
action behaviors in global virtual teams. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(5), 441–452.
Deming, D. J. (2017). The growing importance of social skills in the labor market. The Quarterly Journal of Eco-
550
nomics, 132(4), 1593–1640.
Dimmick, J., Ramirez Jr, A., Wang, T., & Lin, S. F. (2007). `Extending society´. The role of personal networks and
gratification-utilities in the use of interactive communication media. New Media & Society, 9(5), 795–810.
555
Drakenberg, M. (2004). Kontinuitet eller förändring? [Continuity or change?]. Equal Ordkraft (Power of Words)
project, Report, Municipality of Helsingborg/Malmo University.
Drakenberg, M., & Malmgren, T. V. (2013). School Principals’ Perceptions of ‘Basic Values’ in the Swedish Com-
pulsory School System in Regard to Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory. Citizenship, Social and Eco-
560
nomics Education, 12(2), 118–128.
Drogendijk, R., & Slangen, A. (2006). Hofstede, Schwartz, or managerial perceptions? The effects of different
cultural distance measures on establishment mode choices by multinational enterprises. International Business
Review, 15(4), 361–380.
565
Dulebohn, J. H., & Hoch, J. E. (2017). Virtual teams in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 27,
569–574.
Ehlers, U.-D. (forthcoming). Future Skills - Zukunft des Lernens, Zukunft der Hochschule. Karlsruhe
570
Eisenberg, J., & Mattarelli, E. (2017). Building bridges in global virtual teams: the role of multicultural brokers in
overcoming the negative effects of identity threats on knowledge sharing across subgroups. Journal of Interna-
tional Management, 23(4), 399–411.
575
Ellebracht, H., Lenz, G., Osterhold, G., & Schäfer, H. (2009). Systemische Organisations-und Unternehmensbera-
tung. Springer Fachmedien.
Erpenbeck, J. (2010). Werte als Kompetenzkerne. In U. Müller, G. Schweizer, & T. Adam (Eds.). Wert und Werte
im Bildungsmanagement: Nachhaltigkeit - Ethik –Bildungscontrolling (pp. 41–66). Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann.
580
Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management science,
46(12), 1554–1568.
Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. JRC Technical Reports. Retrieved
585
on 12.10.2018 from http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/55823 162/FinalCSRe-
port_PDFPARAWEB.pdf
Flechsig, K.-H. (2000). Kulturelle Orientierungen. Internes Arbeitspapier (Institut Für Interkulturelle Didaktik).
Retrieved on 15.05.2018 from http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~kflechs/iikdiaps1-00.htm
590
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 21
21
Gibbs, J. (2009). Dialectics in a global software team. Negotiating tensions across time, space, and culture. Hu-
man Relations, 62(6), 905–935.
Gibbs, J. L., Sivunen, A., & Boyraz, M. (2017). Investigating the impacts of team type and design on virtual team
595
processes. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 590–603.
Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. (2007). Virtual team leadership: The effects of leadership style and
communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes, 103(1), 1–20.
600
Hardin, A. M., Fuller, M. A., & Davison, R. M. (2007). I know I can, but can we? Culture and efficacy beliefs in
global virtual teams. Small Group Research, 38(1), 130–155.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance. Changing
605
effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5),
1029–1045.
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), pp. 481–494.
Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task inter-
610
dependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, 13(1), 1–28.
Hinds, P. J., Liu, L., & Lyon, J. (2011). Putting the global in global work: An intercultural lens on the process of
cross-national collaboration. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 1–54.
615
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations. Software of the mind. Intercultural cooperation and its im-
portance for survival. London: Mc Graw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. International differences in work-related values. Cross-cultural Re-
620
search and Methodology Series, Vol. 5. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hollingshead, A. B, McGrath, J.E., & O’Connor, M. (1993). Group task performance and communication technol-
ogy. A longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups, Small Group Research 24(3)
307–324.
625
Holmstrom, H., Conchúir, E. Ó., Agerfalk, J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2006, October). Global software development chal-
lenges. A case study on temporal, geographical and socio-cultural distance. In Global Software Engineering, 2006.
ICGSE'06. International Conference on IEEE, 3–11.
630
House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). Cross-cultural research on organizational leadership: A critical
analysis and a proposed theory (Working Paper 99-03). Retrieved on 02.11. 2018, from https://pdfs.seman-
ticscholar.org/feb9/b31b1e3e8178c99a4daf98edfb0b0c202e1f. pdf
Jarvenpaa, S. L. & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science,
635
10(6), 791–815.
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.
640
Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. (2000). The global virtual manager: A prescription for success. European Manage-
ment Journal, 18(2), 183–194.
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 22
22
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture's consequences: A review of em-
pirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies,
645
37(3), 285–320.
Klitmøller, A., & Lauring, J. (2013). When global virtual teams share knowledge: Media richness, cultural differ-
ence and language commonality. Journal of World Business, 48(3), 398–406.
650
Kluckholn, C. (1951). The study of culture. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.) The policy sciences. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Kluckhohn, F. R. & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL:
Row, Peterson.
655
Kormos, J., & Csizér, K. (2007). An interview study of inter-cultural contact and its role in language learning in a
foreign language environment. System, 35(2), 241–258.
Kramer, W. S., Shuffler, M. L., & Feitosa, J. (2017). The world is not flat. Examining the interactive multidimen-
660
sionality of culture and virtuality in teams. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 604–620.
Kriz, J. (2001). Self-organization of cognitive and interactional processes. In M. Matthies, H. Malchow, & J. Kriz
(Eds): Integrative Systems Approaches to Natural and Social Dynamics (pp. 517–537). Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer.
665
Lauring, J., & Selmer, J. (2012). International language management and diversity climate in multicultural organ-
izations. International Business Review, 21, 156–166.
Lauring, J., & Selmer, J. (2010). Multicultural organizations: Common language and group cohesiveness. Inter-
670
national Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10, 267–284.
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(1-2), 69–92.
675
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1999). Virtual teams. The new way to work. Strategy & Leadership, 27(1), 14–19.
Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Hung, Y. T. (2003). Because time matters. Temporal coordination in
global virtual project teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 129–155.
680
Matveev, A. V., & Milter, R. G. (2004). The value of intercultural competence for performance of multicultural
teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 10(5/6), 104–111.
Matveev, A. V., & Nelson, P. E. (2004). Cross cultural communication competence and multicultural team per-
formance: Perceptions of American and Russian managers. International Journal of Cross Cultural Manage-
685
ment, 4(2), 253–270.
Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. L. (2012). Something (s) old and something (s) new:
Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 342–365.
690
Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effec-
tiveness. Organization Science, 11(5), 473–492.
Maznevski, M. L., Gomez, C. B., DiStefano, J. J., Noorderhaven, N. G., & Wu, P. C. (2002). Cultural dimensions at
the individual level of analysis. The cultural orientations framework. International Journal of Cross Cultural
695
Management, 2(3), 275-295.
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 23
23
Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and con-
flict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1251–1262.
700
Moy, J. (1999). The impact of generic competencies on workplace performance. Review of research. National
Centre for Vocational Education Research. Retrieved on 03.11.2018 from
https://www.ncver.edu.au/__data/assets/file/0018/6831/td_tnc_58_30.pdf
OECD (2017). Future of Work and Skills. 2nd Meeting of the G20 Employment Working Group. Hamburg. Re-
705
trieved on 03.09.2018, from https://www.oecd.org/els/emp/wcms_556984.pdf
OECD (2016). New Skills for the Digital Economy: Measuring the Demand and Supply of ICT Skills at Work. Tech-
nical Report prepared for the 2016 Ministerial Meeting on the Digital Economy. Paris: OECD Publishing.
710
Paul, S., He, F., & Dennis, A. R. (2018). Group Atmosphere, Shared Understanding, and Team Conflict in Short
Duration Virtual Teams. Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved
on 28.09.2018 from https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/49935/1/paper0048.pdf
Peng, R. Z., & Wu, W. P. (2016). Measuring intercultural contact and its effects on intercultural competence: A
715
structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 53, 16–27.
Peters, O. (2000). Digital learning environments: New possibilities and opportunities. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 1(1).
720
Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future
research. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 6–36.
Prasad, K., & Akhilesh, K. B. (2002). Global virtual teams: what impacts their design and performance? Team
Performance Management: An International Journal, 8(5/6), 102–112.
725
Richter, T. (2014). Kulturorientierte Forschung in der Wirtschaftsinformatik: Entwicklung eines Werkzeugs zur
Abgrenzung kultureller Forschungskontexte und zur Ermittlung kontextuell passender Kulturbeschreibungsmo-
delle (Dissertation). Universität Duisburg–Essen, Essen. Retrieved on 16.04.2018 from http://duepublico.uni–du-
isburg–essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate–41884/Richter_Diss_2014.pdf
730
Ruppel, C. P., Gong, B., & Tworoger, L. C. (2013). Using communication choices as a boundary–management
strategy: How choices of communication media affect the work–life balance of teleworkers in a global virtual
team. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 27(4), 436–471.
735
RW3 CultureWizard (2016). Trends in global virtual teams report. Virtual Teams Survey Report – 2016. Re-
trieved on 15.09.2018 from http://info.rw–3.com/virtual–teams–survey–0
Sarker, S., & Sahay, S. (2002, January). Information systems development by US–Norwegian virtual teams: Im-
plications of time and space. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Re-
740
trieved on 24.10.2018 from https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2002/1435/01/14350018.pdf
Sauter, W., & Staudt, A. K. (2016). Kompetenzmessung in der Praxis: Mitarbeiterpotenziale erfassen und analy-
sieren. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
745
Schein, E. H. & Schein, P. (2018). Organisationskultur und Leadership (5th Ed.). München: Franz Vahlen.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of
Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.
750
Title: Defining a Framework for Digital Global Collaboration Cultures
Author: Sarah A. Kellermann & Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Date: 21.11.2018
Seite 24
24
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology, 48(1),
23–47.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociol-
ogy, 5(2), 137–182.
755
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and
Culture, 2(1), 11.
Schmidt, J. B., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Massey, A. P. (2001). New product development decision–making ef-
760
fectiveness. Comparing individuals, face-to-face teams, and virtual teams. Decision Sciences, 32, 575–600.
Shachaf, P. (2008). Cultural diversity and information and communication technology impacts on global virtual
teams. An exploratory study. Information & Management, 45(2), 131–142.
765
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 339–358.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1989). Issues in the development of a theory of interpersonal competence in the intercultural
context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(3), 241–268.
770
Straub, D., Loch, K., Evaristo, R., Karahanna, E., & Strite, M. (2002). Toward a theory-based measurement of
culture. Journal of Global Information Management, 10, 13–23.
Suchan, J., & Hayzak, G. (2001). The communication characteristics of virtual teams. A case study. IEEE transac-
tions on Professional Communication, 44(3), 174–186.
775
Taras, V., Caprar, D. V., Rottig, D., Sarala, R. M., Zakaria, N., Zhao, F., ... & Bryła, P. (2013). A global classroom?
Evaluating the effectiveness of global virtual collaboration as a teaching tool in management education. Acad-
emy of Management Learning & Education, 12(3), 414–435.
780
Trompenaars F. & Hampden–Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture. Understanding
cultural diversity in business. London: Nicholas Brealey.
UNESCO (2018). Skills and innovation in G20 countries. Information Paper, 50. Retrieved on 05.09.2018, from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0026/002655/265503e.pdf
785
Wong, S.S. & Burton, R. M (2000). Virtual teams. What are their characteristics, and impact on team perfor-
mance? Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 6, 339–360.
