Content uploaded by Daphne Halkias
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daphne Halkias on Feb 26, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Knowledge Sharing Across Time Zones: Experiences of Diverse Virtual Team Managers
Amy Jarrell, Ph.D.
Walden University, United States
Michael Neubert, Ph.D.
Walden University, United States
Daphne Halkias, Ph.D.
International School of Management, Paris
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
2
Abstract
Purpose: This paper aims to explore knowledge sharing in virtual teams between individuals
with varied cultural perspectives working in different time zones.
Design/methodology/approach: Narrative inquiry design was used to collect in-depth,
experiential data from 8 participants working as virtual team managers in the United States. A
thematic and critical events approach was used to analyze participant experiences.
Findings: The findings of this research demonstrate the exceptionally complex and dynamic
environment in virtual workspaces. Results suggest that challenges and barriers relating to
knowledge sharing can be diminished by fostering positive relationship development, utilizing
various types of technology platforms, and open communication among virtual team members.
Research limitations/implications: The results highlight the necessity of relationship
development to facilitate meaningful knowledge sharing in virtual workspaces. This study also
suggests that appropriate use of technology platforms is essential in the knowledge exchange
process.
Practical implications: Findings in this study provide managerial implications that support
creating and maintaining organizational climates that embrace and value diversity, member
knowledge, expertise, and alternate perspectives.
Originality/Value: This paper reports the findings of an empirical narrative inquiry study
conducted through the lens of reciprocal and social exchange and contributes to a deeper
understanding of organizational relationships in diverse virtual teams.
Keywords: Virtual teams; Knowledge sharing; Narrative inquiry; Virtual workspaces; Time
zones; Managers; Reciprocal exchange; Social exchange
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
3
Introduction
Rapid changes are occurring in society as globally impacting situations such as Covid-19
have forced countless organizations to rely on technology and virtual teaming to conduct day-to-
day operations (Wingard, 2020). As organizations adapt to challenges within society, advancing
technology, globalization, and an expanding remote workforce, the success of virtual teams
significantly relies on the ability of the team leader and individuals to share knowledge and
synthesize it in a meaningful way (Gallup, 2016; Gartner, Inc, 2018; Schecter & Contactor,
2019). Although virtual team utilization offers numerous benefits to a wide variety of
organizations, obstacles and barriers get in the way of effective knowledge sharing practices.
Considerable attention has been paid to various virtual team aspects to determine
behavioral influences relating to knowledge sharing facilitation. Factors such as social exchange,
well-being, diversity, and team motivation were examined to determine their impact on team
members (Chumg et al., 2015; Gang & Ravichandran, 2015; Killingsworth et al., 2016; Kim,
2018). Further, researchers have investigated topics of virtual team context, knowledge sharing,
diversity, and leadership separately and occasionally together to develop new knowledge
regarding modern organizations (Chumg et al., 2015; Killingsworth et al., 2016; Kim, 2018; Wu
& Lee, 2017). As complexity rises in modern teams, diversity is questioned on several levels.
Functional, geographical, and hierarchical diversity were identified as possible influencers on
communicative interactions across virtual channels and knowledge exchange (Kim, 2018).
Despite increasing research on virtual teams, there is a gap in integrating specific
challenges of virtual team leaders and respective solutions to issues such as effective knowledge-
sharing across academic literature and industry practices. Specifically, how virtual managers
facilitate knowledge sharing between individuals within diverse virtual teams across different
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
4
time zones is not well understood (Endres & Chowdhury, 2019; Kim, 2018). Thus, the purpose
of this qualitative, narrative inquiry study is to examine the daily online experiences of virtual
team managers in the United States with knowledge sharing between individual team members
with varied cultural perspectives working in different time zones. The research question guiding
this study is as follows:
RQ: How do virtual team managers in the United States describe their daily online experiences
with knowledge sharing between individuals with varied cultural perspectives working in
different time zones?
This study makes three meaningful contributions to the literature on virtual teams and
knowledge sharing. First, this research empirically analyzed influential factors in virtual
workspaces such as leadership, diversity, and knowledge exchange. Specifically, this study
observed the challenges and barriers experienced in virtual workspaces and the influence
organizational relationships have on the knowledge sharing process. Second, this research
reports findings of an empirical narrative inquiry study conducted through the lens of reciprocal
and social exchange, contributing a deeper understanding of organizational relationships in
diverse virtual contexts. Third, a research framework is specified for supporting knowledge
sharing, diversity, and leadership in virtual team environments. This study is unique in that
creative and original concepts are explored concerning knowledge sharing in virtual teams across
different time zones through the experiences of virtual team managers in the U.S., where most
previous studies involved university students and/or simulated work environments (Carter &
Becker, 2017; Charlier et al., 2016; Cheng et al., 2016; Paul et al., 2016). By exploring virtual
team managers' experiences in this research, this study contributes a more in-depth
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
5
understanding of the dynamics and complexities that reside beyond surface-level transactions of
knowledge exchange in virtual workspaces.
Literature review and conceptual framework
Over the past several decades, organizations have dramatically changed how they
operate. Modern technology provides organizations with numerous opportunities to collaborate
anytime, anywhere, and with whomever they choose. Organizations are increasing their use of
virtual teams to overcome distance obstacles, reduce costs, and minimize environmental impact
while expanding their reach and access to diverse populations (Ford et al., 2017; Olaisen &
Revang, 2017). Leading-edge technology and a changing society attribute to the rising presence
of virtual teams in organizations as they incorporate methods to communicate and accomplish
daily tasks across distance, time, and space (Gilson et al., 2015). Further, organizational structure
shifts have both positive and negative implications on organizations and their members as they
collaborate and exchange knowledge remotely.
Challenges and barriers
Virtual workspaces are complex and dynamic environments in which diverse team
members rely on various technology platforms to communicate and accomplish tasks. As no two
virtual teams are alike, each team faces challenges specific to their organization and
configuration; thus, as obstacles are encountered, team members must regulate their performance
and behavior based on unique situations that arise (Hill et al., 2014). Barriers relating to
diversity, behaviors, and social relationships are often influenced by geographically dispersed
workspaces, the absence of physical contact, various forms of diversity, and interacting across
time zones to meet the team and organizational needs (Gilson et al., 2015; Haas & Cummings,
2015; Oparaocha, 2016). These barriers obstruct knowledge exchange in virtual workspaces as
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
6
team members have limited to no face-to-face interaction to rely on when developing intra-
organizational relationships (Kim, 2018; Schaubroeck & Yu, 2017). Further, due to the
multifaceted nature of virtual workspaces, effective leadership approaches, and suitable
organizational reporting structures add to the difficulties experienced among organizations and
team members (Zuofa & Ochieng, 2017).
Leadership in virtual workspaces
Leadership is often the topic of discussion when examining success and failure in
organizations. Today’s virtual team leaders are faced with the challenging task of harnessing the
unique traits, skills, and knowledge of diverse team members to effectively come together to
meet team goals and objectives (Eisenberg et al., 2016; Gheni et al., 2015). As organizations
continue to evolve, the structure of leadership also shifts. Leadership in virtual workspaces can
take on a variety of structures that are conditional to the virtuality of the team. For instance, a
team with low virtuality might follow a top-down hierarchy. In contrast, a hybrid virtual team
might consider utilizing an agile leadership structure; while a high virtuality team might gravitate
towards non-traditional styles, such as shared leadership or emergent leadership (Hoch &
Dulebohn, 2017; Li et al., 2016). Regardless of the implemented leadership approach,
mindfulness, and consideration of challenges and barriers are essential for effective team
functioning and knowledge exchange. Virtual team success hinges on the team leader and team
members' ability to share knowledge among themselves and subsequently synthesize it in a
meaningful way (Schecter & Contactor, 2019).
Organizational relationships
As people are the foundation of most organizations, relationships are an essential
requirement for effective knowledge sharing, team performance, and the organization's overall
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
7
success. Researchers have identified various factors that influence organizational relationship
development in virtual workspaces such as team type, team behaviors, in-group subtleties, and
intergroup contact (Alvídrez et al., 2015; Plotnick et al., 2016; Yilmaz, 2016; Yilmaz & Pena,
2015). It is postulated in virtual team literature that the absence of social presence in
organizational relationships can impede development as trust and communication, a key
component in interpersonal, organizational relationships, are highlighted as important
antecedents to collaboration (Panteli et al., 2019). With that said, aspects of diversity on various
levels are also influential to how team members collaborate across distances.
Diversity in virtual workspaces
Diversity in virtual workspaces offers organizations a plethora of opportunities for team
innovation and diverse knowledge exchange to enhance performance and outcomes; however,
researchers emphasize that diversity management is significantly challenging in modern
organizational structures (Lu et al., 2015). Culture exists within many different environments in
society, spanning from a personal level to an organizational level. Surface-level attributes refer
to age, gender, race, and physical disability, while deep level attributes signify cognitive ability,
personality traits, values, beliefs, and attitudes (Han & Beyerlein, 2016; Tenzer et al., 2014).
Still, functional diversity is less about one’s culture or physical attributes and more about their
knowledge, skills, information, and expertise (Batarseh et al., 2017). Virtual environments have
the unique ability to subdue certain diverse traits among team members. Yet, at the same time, it
can be especially challenging for other aspects of diversity as team members must effectively use
technology to overcome such barriers (Eisenberg & Krishnan, 2018).
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
8
Sharing knowledge across virtual channels
A variety of applications have been developed to assist with task management, virtual
communication, and information sharing. Wikis, chats, social media, blogs, social networking
platforms, instant messaging, and specialized information and communication technology
support knowledge sharing and social collaboration across virtual spaces (Anders, 2016; Meher
& Mahajan, 2018). Although organizations have an abundance of technology to choose from,
barriers reside with team members using the right tool at the right time and the willingness and
level of communication they offer to their colleagues (Hacker et al., 2019; Schaubroeck & Yu,
2017). Knowledge is a vital asset to organizations as it is used to achieve and maintain a
competitive advantage (Curtis & Taylor, 2018; Endres & Chowdhury, 2019; Navimipour &
Charband, 2016). Despite advancing technology tools and platforms, factors such as geographic
dispersion, diversity, temporal distances, organizational structure, and team configuration are
noted across scholarly literature as challenges when sharing knowledge in a virtual team
environment (Alsharo et al., 2017; Eisenberg & Krishnan, 2018; Hacker et al., 2019). Further,
the effective transfer and management of various types of knowledge, internally and externally to
the organization, often challenge organizations’ ability to remain competitive due to rapid
advancements in technology and organizational change (Asrar-ul-Haq & Anwar, 2016; Guedda,
2018; Kim, 2018). Although virtual team members share knowledge over a wide array of
technologies for various reasons, the willingness to share knowledge ultimately resides with the
individual member.
Conceptual framework
In addressing the purpose of exploring virtual team managers’ experiences with
knowledge sharing in virtual workspaces, this study is framed through concepts of reciprocal
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
9
exchange and social exchange (Cropanzano et al., 2017). As shown in Figure 1., several factors
influence an exchange relationship.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework
Reciprocal exchange and social exchange have common features to explain social
phenomena in management and organizations (Cropanzano et al., 2017). For instance, a series of
successful reciprocal exchanges might lead to a high-quality social exchange relationship
providing numerous benefits to employees and organizations. In contrast, a series of negative
exchanges can have the opposite effect. Similarly, positive initiating actions can elicit positive
feelings, while negative initiating actions tend to elicit negative feelings (Cropanzano et al.,
2017).
Affect theory in social exchange incorporates emotions produced by the social exchange
as influencers of strength or weakness of relationship ties among individuals, groups, and
networks (Lawler, 2001). When viewing networks and teams as micro-social orders, patterns of
interactions and exchanges also emerge from such units (Lawler et al., 2008). Over time, patterns
of interactions progress into a state of cohesion as relationships develop impacting contributions
of knowledge exchange. For instance, everyday feelings from repeated interactions may produce
Exchange
Relationship
Positive/Negative
Affect/Emotions
Knowledge
Internal Factors
External Factors
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
10
positive or negative sentiments about the social unit or individual and further influence
knowledge sharing decisions (Lawler, 2001; Lawler et al., 2008).
Knowledge exchange in an organization falls within two primary categories of explicit
and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is regarded as searchable information easily
transferable, while tacit knowledge is considered highly personalized and challenging to
verbalize, capture, and transfer to others (Chumg et al., 2015; Razak et al., 2016). Virtual team
settings are dynamic and layered in activity. When placing knowledge on a continuum,
knowledge can take on different forms, such as with different levels of explicitness or tacitness
depending on the circumstance (Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009). In virtual workspaces, managers
and employees rely on their existing and documented knowledge and others' knowledge to
perform tasks and achieve goals. Through the process of knowledge conversion, the knowledge
needed to perform tasks and achieve goals could take on varying degrees of explicitness or
tacitness conditional to where the knowledge originates, the additional knowledge needed, and
from there interactively shaping the knowledge to how it will be applied (Nonaka & von Krogh,
2009). The alteration of knowledge based on where it situates on the continuum is influential in
exchange relationships through internal and external factors.
Internal and external factors in one’s environment influence one’s decision to exchange
knowledge and the type, volume, and completeness of knowledge to be exchanged. Internal
factors such as the nature of knowledge, motivations to share, and opportunities to share
interconnect while influencing each other on a nonlinear basis (Choudhary & Sarikwal, 2017;
Ipe, 2003; Jinyang, 2015). Whereas external factors such as the individual’s perceptions and
behaviors, culture, and context dictate the value of knowledge, types of relationships, and
rewards encouraged or hindered through knowledge sharing (Ipe, 2003; Killingsworth et al.,
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
11
2016; Peng, 2013). Although each factor does not exert the same amount of influence on
knowledge sharing, each factor is influential based on elements of an organization such as
objectives, structure, practices and policies, and culture (Ipe, 2003). Further, organizations
evolve based on variations with internal and external factors constructed from societal change,
creating a cycle that influences knowledge exchange in organizations (Cropanzano et al., 2017).
Figure 2. Societal change influence on knowledge exchange
Research Methodology
Data collection and sample demographics
The target population of the study consisted of virtual team managers based in the United
States. Each manager had a minimum of 2-years of experience working as a virtual team
manager. Additionally, they had frequent virtual interactions with coworkers in diverse settings.
Purposeful sampling was used to collect rich and descriptive data, and participants were solicited
based on their ability to meet the inclusion criteria set for the study. Participants were recruited
Societal
Change
Internal
Factors
External
Factors
Knowledge
Exchange
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
12
from social media networks – Facebook and LinkedIn, and participation in the study was
voluntary. The sample size consisted of eight participants, at which point saturation was reached.
The participants’ experiences as virtual team managers ranged from 2 years to over 15
years. An equal number of men and women represented the study. Most participants functioned
as mid-level managers in their organizations, except for two participants holding upper-level
management positions. Finally, a diverse range of industries was found across the total sample
size, which offered a unique perspective of working in a virtual team capacity.
Data Collection
The data was collected using in-depth, semi-structured interviews over a period of 8
weeks from August 16, 2019, through October 10, 2019. Interviews were conducted over Skype,
Zoom, FaceTime, and Facebook Messenger Video Chat and recorded using a video memo
application, and when available through the record function of the platform software. The
interviews ranged from 30 minutes to 60 minutes in length, and follow-up emails were used to
obtain any missed information or clarifications.
The researcher developed the interview protocol used for the interviews. Serving as the
guide during each interview, the protocol consisting of nine open-ended questions. The questions
were developed based on existing literature, what is known about the topic, the researcher’s
experiences relating to the topic, and the central research question. The following procedures
occurred after each interview: member debriefing, reflective journaling, manual transcription of
the interview, and member checking.
Data analysis
The data analysis procedures for this study involved a 2-phase approach using critical
event analysis and thematic analysis to reinforce the validity and trustworthiness of data. Critical
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
13
This study's data analysis procedures involved a 2-phase approach using critical events analysis
and thematic analysis to reinforce the data's validity and trustworthiness. Critical events analysis
in this study helped reveal changes in understanding from the storyteller that impacts the
individual's professional or work-related role while thematic analysis was used to uncover and
categorize participants' experiences through language (see Riessman, 2008; Webster & Mertova,
2007). Further, this approach allowed for the surfacing of any significant expressions relating to
how the experiences were communicated through language and their lived experiences
(Clandinin, 2016; Riessman, 2008).
he first phase of analysis was conducted through thematic analysis. The data was
transferred to an excel spreadsheet. As information was entered and organized, significant
remarks and expressions revealed during the interviews were incorporated into the data analysis
(see Saldaña, 2016). The second phase of analysis utilized the thematic codes to categorize and
associate the meanings and experiences revealed (see Clandinin, 2016). Data analysis for this
study was conducted manually to ensure consistency of the data's analysis process and integrity.
Results
Conceptual categories
Thematic analysis revealed patterns that were combined into five conceptual categories that
were used to address the central research question. The five conceptual categories were grounded
in the conceptual framework, while the 18 reformulating themes forming the foundation of
interpretation spoke to the central research question. The conceptual themes included:
• Conceptual category: Positive and negative factors experienced in virtual knowledge
sharing
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
14
o Themes: (a) Time zones as a challenge (b) Culture as a challenge and as a benefit
(c) Collaboration and communication as a benefit (d) Interpretation and
perception as a challenge (e) Technology as a benefit and as a challenge
• Conceptual category: Affect and emotional connection experienced in a virtual
workspace
o Themes: (a) Adapting knowledge sharing behavior (b) Socialization among team
members (c) Showing concern for others (d) Relationship aspects and knowledge
sharing
• Conceptual category: Types of knowledge shared in virtual workspaces
o Themes: (a) Uses a combination of tacit and explicit knowledge (b) Tacit or
explicit knowledge as a primary type of knowledge shared (c) Tacit knowledge
used as a supplement to explicit knowledge
• Conceptual category: Internal factors of sharing knowledge in virtual workspaces
o Themes: (a) Shares knowledge based on situation, need, or task (b) Shares
knowledge based on person or position (c) Sharing knowledge in a variety of
ways
• Conceptual category: External factors of sharing knowledge in virtual workspaces
o Themes: (a) Knowledge sharing across time zones (b) Knowledge sharing across
hierarchy levels, work centers, and cultures (c) Relationship with recipient
Table 1, shown below, elaborates on the themes and conceptual categories developed
during this study, demonstrating how themes that shared similar characteristics were realigned
into single categories. Narratives from participants’ interviews were used to support the
reformulated themes.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
15
Table 1
Coding and Theme Examples
Participant
Interview excerpt from participant narratives
Conceptual
Category
Reformulated
Themes
Participant 1
“I think cultural differences can be difficult sometimes, because
the way that an English-speaking country and the way that a
Spanish speaking country may read or experience something,
that may be very first nature for them may be a world of
difference for the other. So how one deals with personalities,
how one deals with common, how one deals with sort of
common terminologies, that may vary greatly from a Spanish
speaking market to an English-speaking market and then you
throw in a French market or a Dutch market or Creole market
into that or a Portuguese market into that. I think that is one of
the bigger challenges and one that doesn’t really get understood
very well or there’s not enough attention paid to it sometimes.
So, that’s one that we have to slow down and really think
through that and understand – wait just because I understood
that, does that mean that they understood that?’
Positive and
negative factors
experienced in
virtual
knowledge
sharing
a) Cultural
differences as a
challenge
b) Challenges
with
interpretation
(c) Managing
multiple cultural
differences
Participant 2
“Yeah, so all of that actually. We all work from home for the
most part, none of us have ever met in person with the exception
that I had met two of the three founders that remained with the
company so we had the two founders, I guess if you had to
describe their titles they would be like Co-CEO’s of the company
and so they would be ones that I would communicate with and
the other people that I communicated with were call center
representatives I guess you would say would be their titles.” “All
of our people were on a different time zone just about. We had
two people on the east, then I was on central for a bit and then on
east. Then the company founders were on central but one of the
founders was actually from Israel and he commuted back and
forth so he would sometimes work from Israel as well and then
another lady lived in California so we would share our
knowledge through those different time zones and we were all
pretty understanding of different time zones and we would work
around each other for the most part unless there was some
extremely immediate situation that needed to be taken care of.
And then all of our workers were from different areas as far as
parts of the country so while not a culture it was a culture subset,
I guess you would say.”
External factors
of sharing
knowledge in
virtual
workspaces
a) Time zone
factors
b) Knowledge
sharing across
hierarchy levels,
work centers,
and cultures
c) Relationship
with recipient
Participant 3
“So, I am the world’s worst at reply all, when my supervisor or
our mission vice president sends out something, she almost
always sends it out to everybody, and I generally don’t do reply
all because it’s not anybody’s business but hers. And sometimes I
will think oh yeah I think I [should reply all], but if it’s something
that’s between me, just with my program and it’s something I can
handle in house it doesn’t usually go up to my boss or my vice
president but if it’s something that I might have, that they ought to
be aware of then I will generally cc my supervisor who is over in
Pensacola.”
Internal
factors of
sharing
knowledge in
virtual
workspaces
a) Shares
knowledge based
on person or
position
b) Shares
knowledge based
on need to know
c) Shares
knowledge based
on situation
(table continues)
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
16
Participant
Interview excerpt from participant narratives
Conceptual
Category
Reformulated
Themes
Participant 4
“I would say both and maybe because it is a smaller place, that I
think that allows a little bit more intimacy and knowing people a
little bit better and needing to depend on each other for things. So,
it’s both, it’s always wanting to do a good job but at the same time
wanting to be able to explain something enough that if there is a
problem that maybe I point out where the potential issue is.”
“Occasionally. I mean, we try to be careful of each other’s time but
unfortunately, like I can’t go to staff meetings so I feel a little bit
out of the loop sometimes about things going on because I can’t be
there. That would be like an 11 o’clock or 12 o’clock at night
meeting, probably not a good idea so there is that. And then
occasionally we can connect in the mornings, well my mornings,
but in the afternoon if I run into a blocker I’m just going to have to
wait and be patient until tomorrow.”
Affect and
emotional
connection
experienced
in a virtual
workspace
a) Relationship
aspects
b) Feeling
disconnected
c) Socialization
among team
members
Participant 5
“I think with certain team members, I chose, for instance, I got
certain individuals that I pick up the phone and call them versus
sending them an instant message just because I know that I will get
a million questions and it’s just easier to have that rapport over the
phone versus you know, or I will setup a, if I got like 5 different
people with 5 different backgrounds and I know that it’s going to be
a difficult conversation and we need multiple input I will do a
WebEx versus an email. There are instances that you just, you
know are going to be easier to get everybody either on the phone or
on a WebEx. Maybe in WebEx you need to screen share to show
something to make it a little bit easier to kind of show the process.”
External
factors of
sharing
knowledge
in virtual
workspaces
a) Work centers
and environment
b) Relationship
with recipient
c) Technology
factors
Participant 6
“I have in the past have, and currently I have different individuals
from different cultures, different even countries I had before. So
really, you just have to get to know that individual, overall I have
my general style I guess, my general management styles but as I get
to know each employee I adjust slightly how I communicate, how I
work with them based upon their personality and their style. So I
have to be very respectful [to them], to be just in general, I mean
obviously you have to be 100% respectful to everybody you work
with whether it’s my employee or someone else but I have to be just
cognizant of their different cultures.
You know holidays, all of those things, just be aware, and kind of
just change my style slightly to kind of meet them in the middle.”
Affect and
emotional
connection
experienced
in a virtual
workspace
a) Adapts
knowledge
sharing behavior
b) Socialization
among team
members
c) Showing
concern for
others with
cultural
awareness
d) Relationship
aspects
Participant 7
“I think it’s a combination of both. In a leadership role you become
a storyteller, regardless of what you do. So, you’re not only sharing
factual information, your sharing your experiences. At the end of
the day people remember stories, they don’t necessarily remember
facts. Humans are driven by storytelling so it’s definitely a
combination of both. So explicit, I would be sharing information
about a particular client and we might be going into a performance
issue and so at that point we’re going to look at specific knowledge
and that specific explicit knowledge would be how are the CPUs
within their cloud environment performing, how many users are
logged in. These are all factual based metrics that we can pull and
share. The second form of that I could be sharing experiences
where perhaps I’ve seen those issues before or how I believe or
perceive their CIO may take that or the issues we’re having if not
corrected. I’m trying to explain a situation based on my previous
experiences based on how I think he or she may react that’s not
drawn from easily referenceable data.”
Types of
knowledge
shared in
virtual
workspaces
a) Combination
of explicit and
tacit knowledge
b) Type of
knowledge shared
is conditional to
situation or task
c) Tacit
knowledge used a
supplement to
explicit
knowledge
(table continues)
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
17
Participant
Interview excerpt from participant narratives
Conceptual
Category
Reformulated
Themes
Participant 8
“Me personally, I’m one to say need to know basis and the reason
why is because you can give too much information it will confuse
the matter because I don’t like to confuse the matter on a lot of
different things so I give the person as much information as they
need to complete their job. If it requires more information that
may span say another person where their deliverable, whatever
the project or feature they’re working on at that time is dependent
on someone else, then I will bring those two in together and then
share it between the two. But, I really like to keep the knowledge
and the information as compartmentalized as possible because it’s
a fast, most of the times we’re fast moving and I’ve found that
you just give what they need, it just seems to be more effective
for me, at least in my experience.” “Just really based on the
project, basically aligning their role with their responsibilities.
So, it’s going to be based on their responsibilities in the role.
Really their responsible for whether it is a deliverable or project
management, QA whatever their responsible for that is how I
determine and what I share. Oh, and also, I share it based off of
questions too. I get peppered with questions all the time, so I
share it that way too.”
Internal
factors of
sharing
knowledge in
virtual
workspaces
a) Shares
knowledge based
on situation,
need, or task
b) Shares
knowledge based
on person,
position, or role
c) Shares more
knowledge as
needed
Critical events
The second phase of analysis consisted of critical events analysis, revealing a change in
understanding from the participant that was impacting to their performance in a professional and
work-related role (see Webster & Mertova, 2007). Analyzing the participants’ critical, like, and
other events added context and provided a more profound understanding of the themes revealed
during the initial analysis phase. For example, the segments of narrative below of participants’
experiences of working across time zones were categorized as critical events as they had an
impact on people (see Webster & Mertova, 2007). The narrative dialogue and categorizing of
events provided a more in-depth understanding while adding meaning to each participant’s
experiences beyond semantic themes such as time zones as a challenge. In this particular
instance, the participants shared the challenges they experienced regarding time zones.
Participant 1 stated,
So, the day can start very early because we do, we’re dealing with supplier partners out of
Asia and Europe so it’s a 24-hour cycle right… You’re always being inundated with
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
18
information from very early in the morning on our east coast timeframe to very late at
night if something is coming from the west coast of the United States or even in
Australia. So, yeah, it’s a matter of managing expectations and timelines on responses, it
can be very, very challenging.
Participant 3 stated,
The different time zones have been a challenge sometimes when, if you’re in Florida,
people think that Florida has one time zone and we have two. It’s happened at both ends,
both at my end and [their] end. You think you’re in the same time zone and you don’t
make adjustments for that and so you might miss an appointment, you know an online
appointment or something like that. That’s been fun. Or if it’s somebody who, their best
time is when they get off work at 7:00 at night, that’s 6:00 at night for me, generally in
the eastern time zone, I will stay around at work and wait and wait and wait and wait and
then I will call them.
Participant 5 stated,
I have a daily huddle with my team every day. That’s at 10:30 central standard time so if
something’s really important that I need to get out to them I really can’t have a meeting
any earlier because [of] my west coast folks so 10:30 is kind of that time frame when I
get everybody so that is usually the earliest that I can get everybody on.
Participant 8 stated,
Time zones, that’s one, that can be a challenge because I believe in work-life balance and
so for the most part, I only have maybe two or three hours in the morning to meet up with
people ‘cause I don’t really like people staying up at like 11 o’clock at night working.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
19
Plus, in my experience you don’t get as, your mind is not as fresh, so your work doesn’t
have as much quality.
Discussion and implications
This narrative inquiry study was conducted to deepen the understanding of the
complexities that occur in virtual workspaces concerning knowledge sharing with diverse
individuals. This study extends the understanding of virtual team managers' daily online
experiences in the United States with knowledge sharing between individual team members with
varied cultural perspectives working in different time zones through five conceptual categories.
A detailed discussion and implications of the findings are provided below.
Positive and negative factors experienced in virtual knowledge sharing
Positive and negative factors experienced with virtual knowledge sharing were
thoroughly explored during this study, presenting important themes concerning time zones,
culture, collaboration, interpretation, and technology. Results from this research support the
implication that communication, modern technology, and the incorporation of diversity enable
virtual teams as they contribute to an organization’s ability to leverage knowledge and maintain a
competitive edge (see Bhat et al., 2017; Pathak, 2015). Further, participants’ experiences in this
study confirmed the challenges and barriers identified by scholars relating to human relations in
virtual workspaces regarding communication, decision making, and knowledge sharing as a
result of geographic separation, lack of physical interaction, and diversity across different time
zones (see Gilson et al., 2015; Haas & Cummings, 2015; Oparaocha, 2016). Throughout this
research, narratives illustrated interpretation and perception as a challenge when sharing
knowledge with diverse individual team members, further impeding their ability to interpret the
meaning of shared knowledge and ideas (see Ford et al., 2017; Schaubroeck & Yu, 2017). Lastly,
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
20
participants’ experiences in this study demonstrated technology as both a benefit and a challenge.
Though advancements of modern technology have created capabilities for organizations to
employ virtual teams in just about any location, issues of connectivity, consistency, performance,
and asynchronous interaction impede adequate knowledge sharing in virtual workspaces (Ariff et
al., 2015; Panteli et al., 2019; Sivunen et al., 2016).
Figure 3. Positive and negative factors experienced in virtual knowledge sharing
Affect and emotional connection experienced in a virtual workspace
Virtual workspaces are dynamic and complex, with numerous challenges centered around
team composition, communication over technology, geographic dispersion, and time zones. This
research presented important themes illustrating adaptive behavior, socialization, a concern for
others, and relationship aspects relating to knowledge sharing in virtual workspaces. For
instance, these findings suggest the importance of developing interpersonal, organizational
relationships in virtual workspaces (see Kauffmann & Carmi, 2019). Narratives of participants
illustrated that adapting knowledge sharing behavior to that of the recipient was necessary to
facilitate fruitful knowledge exchange. Further, this study demonstrated the various levels of
team members' socialization and the impact on knowledge sharing. These findings are consistent
with research concerning the quality of organizational relationships as a contributing factor in
Positive &
negative factors
experienced in
virtual
knowledge
sharing
Time zones as a
challenge
Culture as a
challenge &
benefit
Collaboration &
communication
as a benefit
Interpretation
& perception as
a challenge
Technology as a
benefit &
challenge
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
21
effective knowledge sharing as the participants emphasized experiences of increased
socialization relating to improved knowledge sharing (see Ahlf et al., 2019; Torro &
Pirkkalainen, 2017). In showing concern for others, participants' narratives revealed a show of
concern for other team members, along with increased interaction and knowledge sharing. These
findings confirmed scholars' notions regarding the level of relationship commitment and
communication concerning social ties and knowledge sharing (see Ahlf et al., 2019; Torro &
Pirkkalainen, 2017). Finally, participants also revealed other aspects regarding relationship ties
such as continuous interaction and developing a connection with the recipient to facilitate tacit
knowledge sharing.
Figure 4. Affect and emotional connection experienced in a virtual workspace
Types of knowledge shared in virtual workspaces
Organizations rely upon two types of primary knowledge, explicit and tacit. This study's
findings suggest how these types of knowledge influence various levels and stages of
organizational success (Curtis & Taylor, 2018; Endres & Chowdhury, 2019; Navimipour &
Charband, 2016; Serenko & Bontis, 2016). Each of the eight participants shared experiences of
utilizing a combination of tacit and explicit knowledge in their daily knowledge sharing with
individual team members. Some participants identified either explicit or tacit knowledge as the
Affect &
emotional
connection
experienced in
a virtual
workspace
Adapting
knowledge
sharing
behavior
Socialization
among team
members
Showing
concern for
others
Relationship
aspects &
knowledge
sharing
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
22
primary type of knowledge shared depending on the type of work and tasks being fulfilled
(Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009; Olaniran, 2017). Study results align with scholar’s implications
that tacit knowledge is essential in contributing to an organization’s competitive advantage as it
is used to supplement explicit knowledge in virtual workspaces (Hu & Randel, 2014; Nonaka &
von Krogh, 2009; Olaniran, 2017). In some narratives, participants expressed the need for tacit
knowledge to leverage explicit knowledge within the team and organization. Further, this
research confirms that the type of knowledge utilized in an organization is dependent on the
organization’s tasks, objectives, and goals and that tacit knowledge complements the
organization’s explicit knowledge to achieve said tasks, objectives, and goals.
Figure 5. Types of knowledge shared in virtual workspaces
Internal factors of sharing knowledge in virtual workspaces
This research presented important themes illustrating the basis of knowledge sharing and
how knowledge is shared among team members in virtual workspaces. Various internal factors
were found and confirmed to influence sharing in virtual workspaces, such as with the nature of
knowledge sharing, and motivations and opportunities to share (Choudhary & Sarikwal, 2017;
Ipe, 2003; Jinyang, 2015). This examination aligns with virtual team managers’ experiences of
sharing knowledge based on rapport, situations that arose, the expressed need for knowledge, and
Types of
knowledge
shared in
virtual
workspaces
Uses a
combination of
tacit & explicit
knowledge
Tacit or explicit
knowledge as the
primary type of
knowledge
shared Tacit knowledge
used as a
supplement to
explicit
knowledge
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
23
assigned tasks (Ipe, 2003). Additionally, in some narratives, virtual team managers’ motivation
and willingness to share knowledge was based on a genuine determination to facilitate the
understanding of knowledge and future knowledge exchange. It is important to note that the data
in this research confirms past investigations of individual willingness and motivation to share
knowledge through participants’ experiences of reciprocity with knowledge sharing to support
situations, needs, and tasks in their respective virtual workspaces (Endres & Chowdhury, 2019;
Ipe, 2003; Pee & Lee, 2015). Narratives also illustrated the various ways knowledge is shared
between individual team members in their internal and external channels to accommodate the
most effective way of sharing knowledge while considering personal preferences and cultural
aspects.
Figure 6. Internal factors of sharing knowledge in virtual workspaces
External factors of sharing knowledge in virtual workspaces
External factors of sharing knowledge in virtual workspaces were confirmed and
supported by the participants’ experiences of knowledge sharing across time zones, hierarchical
levels, work centers, cultures, and relationships with the recipient. This investigation further
aligns with previous research by confirming the diverse influences that impact sufficient
knowledge sharing between individual team members (Batarseh et al., 2017; Ipe, 2003; Kim,
Internal factors
of sharing
knowledge in
virtual
workspaces
Shares knowledge
based on situation,
need, or task
Shares knowledge
based on person or
position
Shares knowledge
in a variety of ways
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
24
2018; Siebdrat et al., 2014). In some narratives, virtual team managers shared experiences of
adapting to time zone differences as it has become a requirement for certain positions. In
contrast, others struggled with the difficulty of time management across varying time zones. This
issue was mostly the case with time zones outside the continental United States, leading to a
narrow window of time available for communicating and collaborating with team members in
other locations during respective work hours.
Functional and deep-level diversity across virtual workspaces adds to the complexity of
sharing knowledge with team members as constraints already exist with relationship
development. Limited interactions inhibit relationship development aspects such as trust and the
willingness to share (Ford et al., 2017; Schaubroeck & Yu, 2017). Participants’ experiences
demonstrated the complexity of communicating across various cultures from a national and
international perspective, even noting the differences in knowledge sharing behaviors across
different work centers and hierarchies. Finally, the relationship with the knowledge recipient was
found to influence participants’ motivations to share knowledge. Trust and power status of
knowledge recipients are critical elements in dynamic virtual team relationships; thus, these
elements are influential to the reciprocal response during knowledge sharing occurrences
(Cropanzano et al., 2017; Ipe, 2003). Narratives in this study illustrated the need for trust
between individual team members and the acknowledgment that knowledge is power in the
context of virtual teams, confirming past research investigations on influences of trust and power
in virtual teams (Costa et al., 2018; Fachrunnisa et al., 2018; Gibbs et al., 2017; Haakonsson et
al., 2016).
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
25
Figure 7. External factors of sharing knowledge in virtual workspaces
As organizations become more reliant on virtual teams to meet the demands of
globalization and work through challenges in society, an emphasis on aspects such as team
development and knowledge sharing is necessary. Modern technology provides organizations
with the tools and capabilities to expand and grow operations across distances while gaining
access to diverse populations. However, virtual teams face unique challenges and adversities
compared to face-to-face teams, which hinders effective knowledge sharing and work
performance. Further, virtual team success relies on the skill and ability of team leaders and
individuals to share knowledge amongst each other and subsequently synthesize it in a
meaningful way (Schecter & Contactor, 2019). With that said, virtual team managers often
obstruct knowledge sharing in virtual workspaces due to their lack of understanding of effective
knowledge sharing with individuals of varied cultural perspectives spanning across different time
zones (Killingsworth et al., 2016; Ng & Tung, 2018). As organizations continue to evolve their
operations and become more dependent on virtual workspaces, it is essential to focus on the
surface level transactions of knowledge exchange across distance, time, and space. With that
said, it is also vital to understand the deeper levels of knowledge sharing, as the quality of
knowledge sharing is beneficial to work productivity and overall organizational success.
External factors
of sharing
knowledge in
virtual
workspaces
Knowledge
sharing across
time zones
Knowledge
sharing across
hierarchy lvls,
work centers, &
cultures
Relationship with
recipient
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
26
This study contributes to the scholarship of virtual teams and knowledge sharing by
expanding on exploratory research concerning virtual team managers in the United States
through the lens of reciprocal and social exchange theory. This area is considerably lacking in
management research. Given that knowledge sharing with diverse individuals working in
different time zones impacts the overall functionality of virtual team collaboration, this study
adds valuable insight into how virtual team managers interact with diverse team members and
their challenges during daily online interaction. Further, this study provides managerial
implications that support creating and maintaining organizational climates that embrace and
value diversity, member knowledge, expertise, and alternate perspectives.
Limitations and recommendations
This study presents several limitations, suggesting possible avenues for continued
research concerning virtual teams and knowledge sharing. One of the limitations of this study is
using the narrative inquiry research method as individual stories might not consistently represent
narratives of virtual team manager’s daily online experiences; therefore, a replication study is
suggested for future studies. Another limitation of this study lies in the data collection method,
which could potentially misrepresent events by participants. Although interviews are a core
element in many qualitative-based studies, in the future, alternative approaches (e.g., quantitative
validation through a mixed methods research approach), is necessary to increase the validity and
reliability of the study results.
Finally, the sample employed in this study consisted of virtual team managers based in
the United States, limiting the study results' transferability. Specifically, applying a broader
research focus may be appropriate to extend the study findings to allow for a more contextual
analysis of management and leadership practices related to virtual teams and knowledge sharing.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
27
Future research could also explore more diverse populations to strengthen what is known
concerning virtual team managers' experiences. Continued research is essential to verify how
virtual teams continue to evolve and its influence on knowledge sharing behaviors across
subcultural contexts. Future research could also assess generational behaviors and technology-
related activities to develop a comprehensive understanding of the impact multiple generations
have when collaborating across distance, time, and space. Finally, researchers could extend the
research to quantitative methods such as surveys to collect more specific data (e.g., time spent
interacting over different types of technologies or strong ties between employees and leadership)
to determine the different influences concerning knowledge sharing in virtual workspaces.
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
28
References
Ahlf, H., Horak, S., Klein, A., & Yoon, S.-W. (2019). Demographic homophily, communication
and trust in intra-organizational business relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 34(2), 474–487. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-03-2018-0093
Alsharo, M., Gregg, D., & Ramirez, R. (2017). Virtual team effectiveness: The role of
knowledge sharing and trust. Information & Management, 54(4), 479–490.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.10.005
Alvídrez, S., Piñeiro-Naval, V., Marcos-Ramos, M., & Rojas-Solís, J. L. (2015). Intergroup
contact in computer-mediated communication: The interplay of a stereotype-
disconfirming behavior and a lasting group identity on reducing prejudiced perceptions.
Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 533–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.006
Anders, A. (2016). Team communication platforms and emergent social collaboration practices.
International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), 224–261.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415627273
Ariff, M. I. M., Sharma, R., & Arshad, N. I. (2015). Exploring the role of transactive memory
systems in virtual teams: Review and synthesis of literature. 2015 International
Symposium on Mathematical Sciences and Computing Research (ISMSC), 304–309.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMSC.2015.7594070
Asrar-ul-Haq, M., & Anwar, S. (2016). A systematic review of knowledge management and
knowledge sharing: Trends, issues, and challenges. Cogent Business & Management,
3(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2015.1127744
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
29
Batarseh, F. S., Usher, J. M., & Daspit, J. (2017). Collaborative capacity in virtual teams:
Examining the influence on diversity and innovation. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 21(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919617500347
Bhat, S. K., Pande, N., & Ahuja, V. (2017). Virtual team effectiveness: An empirical study using
SEM. Procedia Computer Science, 122, 33–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.338
Carter, T. A., & Becker, A. (2017). Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual teams: A
replication. Transactions on Replication Research, 3, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.17705/1atrr.00020
Charlier, S. D., Stewart, G. L., Greco, L. M., & Reeves, C. J. (2016). Emergent leadership in
virtual teams: A multilevel investigation of individual communication and team
dispersion antecedents. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 745–764.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.05.002
Cheng, X., Fu, S., & Druckenmiller, D. (2016). Trust development in globally distributed
collaboration: A case of U.S. and Chinese mixed teams. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 33(4), 978–1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2016.1267521
Choudhary, P., & Sarikwal, L. (2017). Conceptual framework of organisational factors on
explicit and tacit knowledge sharing. International Organization of Scientific Research
Journals, 19(2), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-1901023438
Chumg, H.-F., Cooke, L., Fry, J., & Hung, I.-H. (2015). Factors affecting knowledge sharing in
the virtual organisation: Employees’ sense of well-being as a mediating effect.
Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.040
Clandinin, D. J. (2016). Engaging in narrative inquiry. Routledge.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
30
Costa, A. C., Fulmer, C. A., & Anderson, N. R. (2018). Trust in work teams: An integrative
review, multilevel model, and future directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
39(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2213
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. A., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A
critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 1–38.
https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099
Curtis, M. B., & Taylor, E. Z. (2018). Developmental mentoring, affective organizational
commitment, and knowledge sharing in public accounting firms. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 22(1), 142–161. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2017-0097
Eisenberg, J., Gibbs, J., & Erhardt, N. (2016). The role of vertical and shared leadership in
virtual team collaboration. In Strategic management and leadership for systems
development in virtual spaces (pp. 22–42). IGI Global.
Eisenberg, J., & Krishnan, A. (2018). Addressing virtual work challenges: Learning from the
field. Organization Management Journal, 15(2), 78–94.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15416518.2018.1471976
Endres, M. L., & Chowdhury, S. (2019). Team and individual interactions with reciprocity in
individual knowledge sharing. In Effective knowledge management systems in modern
society (pp. 123–145). IGI Global.
Fachrunnisa, O., Tjahjono, H. K., & Palupi, M. (2018). Cognitive collective engagement in
virtual collaborative team. 2018 7th International Conference on Industrial Technology
and Management, 390. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITM.2018.8333981
Ford, R. C., Piccolo, R. F., & Ford, L. R. (2017). Strategies for building effective virtual teams:
Trust is key. Business Horizons, 60, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.08.009
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
31
Gallup. (2016). State of the American workplace (p. 211). Gallup.
http://news.gallup.com/reports/199961/7.aspx?utm_source=gbj&utm_campaign=Stateof
AmericanWorkplace-Launch&utm_medium=copy&utm_content=20170315
Gang, K., & Ravichandran, T. (2015). Exploring the determinants of knowledge exchange in
virtual communities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 62(1), 89–99.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2014.2376521
Gartner, Inc. (2018). Leadership and professional development: Building skills for long-term
business impact. CEB Global. https://www.cebglobal.com/insights/leadership-and-
professional-development.html
Gheni, A. Y., Jusoh, Y. Y., Jabar, M. A., Ali, N. M., Abdullah, R. Hj., Abdullah, S., & Khalefa,
M. (2015). The virtual teams: E-leaders challenges. 2015 IEEE Conference on E-
Learning, e-Management and e-Services, 38–42.
https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3e.2015.7403483
Gibbs, J. L., Kim, H., & Boyraz, M. (2017). Virtual teams. In C. R. Scott, L. Lewis, J. R. Barker,
J. Keyton, T. Kuhn, & P. K. Turner (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of
organizational communication (pp. 1–14). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Jones Young, N. C., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015).
Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of
Management, 41(5), 1313–1337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314559946
Guedda, C. (2018). Managing inter-organizational knowledge sharing: A multilevel analysis.
European Conference on Knowledge Management; Kidmore End, 1193–1199.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/2117321908/abstract/FAAB968C60944917PQ/1
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
32
Haakonsson, D. D., Obel, B., Eskildsen, J. K., & Burton, R. (2016). On cooperative behavior in
distributed teams: The influence of organization design, media richness, social
interaction, and interaction adaptation. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(692), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00692/full
Haas, M. R., & Cummings, J. N. (2015). Barriers to knowledge seeking within MNC teams:
Which differences matter most? Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1), 36.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.37
Hacker, J. V., Johnson, M., Saunders, C., & Thayer, A. L. (2019). Trust in virtual teams: A
multidisciplinary review and integration. Australasian Journal of Information Systems,
23. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v23i0.1757
Han, S. J., & Beyerlein, M. (2016). Framing the effects of multinational cultural diversity on
virtual team processes. Small Group Research, 47(4), 351–383.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496416653480
Hill, N. S., Seo, M.-G., & Kang, J. H. (2014). The interactive effect of leader-member exchange
and electronic communication on employee psychological empowerment and work
outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 772–783.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.006
Hoch, J. E., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2017). Team personality composition, emergent leadership and
shared leadership in virtual teams: A theoretical framework. Human Resource
Management Review, 27, 678–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.012
Hu, L., & Randel, A. E. (2014). Knowledge sharing in teams: Social capital, extrinsic incentives,
and team innovation. Group & Organization Management, 39(2), 213–243.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114520969
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
33
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource
Development Review, 2(4), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484303257985
Jinyang, L. (2015). Knowledge sharing in virtual communities: A social exchange theory
perspective. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 8(1), 170–183.
https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.1389
Kauffmann, D., & Carmi, G. (2019). A comparative study of temporary and ongoing teams on e-
environment. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 62(2), 148–164.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2019.2900909
Killingsworth, B., Xue, Y., & Liu, Y. (2016). Factors influencing knowledge sharing among
global virtual teams. Team Performance Management, 22(5/6), 284–300.
https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-10-2015-0042
Kim, H. (2018). Differential impacts of functional, geographical, and hierarchical diversity on
knowledge sharing in the midst of organizational change. Management Communication
Quarterly, 32(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/089331891772840
Lawler, E. J. (2001). An affect theory of social exchange. The American Journal of Sociology,
107(2), 321–352. https://doi.org/10.1086/324071
Lawler, E. J., Thye, S. R., & Yoon, J. (2008). Social exchange and micro social order. American
Sociological Review, 73(4), 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240807300401
Li, W., Liu, K., Belitski, M., Ghobadian, A., & O’Regan, N. (2016). E-Leadership through
strategic alignment: An empirical study of small- and medium-sized enterprises in the
digital age. Journal of Information Technology, 31(2), 185–206.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2016.10
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
34
Lu, C.-M., Chen, S.-J., Huang, P.-C., & Chien, J.-C. (2015). Effect of diversity on human
resource management and organizational performance. Journal of Business Research,
68(4), 857–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.041
Meher, D. P., & Mahajan, N. (2018). An analytical study of use of knowledge sharing methods
in education. 2018 International Conference on Current Trends towards Converging
Technologies (ICCTCT), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCTCT.2018.8551044
Navimipour, N. J., & Charband, Y. (2016). Knowledge sharing mechanisms and techniques in
project teams: Literature review, classification, and current trends. Computers in Human
Behavior, 62, 730–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.003
Ng, P. K., & Tung, B. (2018). The importance of reward and recognition system in the
leadership of virtual project teams: A qualitative research for the financial services sector.
Journal of Transnational Management, 23(4), 198–214.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15475778.2018.1512827
Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009). Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy
and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science,
20(3), 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0412
Olaisen, J., & Revang, O. (2017). Working smarter and greener: Collaborative knowledge
sharing in virtual global project teams. International Journal of Information
Management, 37, 1441–1448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.10.002
Olaniran, O. J. (2017). Barriers to tacit knowledge sharing in geographically dispersed project
teams in oil and gas projects. Project Management Journal, 48(3), 41–57.
https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800303
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
35
Oparaocha, G. O. (2016). Towards building internal social network architecture that drives
innovation: A social exchange theory perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management,
20(3), 534–556. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2015-0212
Panteli, N., Yalabik, Z. Y., & Rapti, A. (2019). Fostering work engagement in geographically-
dispersed and asynchronous virtual teams. Information Technology & People, 32(1), 2–
17. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2017-0133
Pathak, A. A. (2015). Effective knowledge management boosts virtual teams. Human Resource
Management International Digest, 23(3), 26. https://doi.org/10.1108/HRMID-03-2015-
0048
Paul, R., Drake, J. R., & Liang, H. (2016). Global virtual team performance: The effects of
coordination effectiveness, trust, and team cohesion. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, 59(3), 186–202. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2016.2583319
Pee, L. g., & Lee, J. (2015). Intrinsically motivating employees’ online knowledge sharing:
Understanding the effects of job design. International Journal of Information
Management, 35(6), 679–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.08.002
Peng, H. (2013). Why and when do people hide knowledge? Journal of Knowledge
Management, 17(3), 398–415. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2012-0380
Plotnick, L., Hiltz, S. R., & Privman, R. (2016). Ingroup dynamics and perceived effectiveness
of partially distributed teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 59(3–
4), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2016.2583258
Razak, N. A., Pangil, F., Zin, M. L. M., Yunus, N. A. M., & Asnawi, N. H. (2016). Theories of
knowledge sharing behavior in business strategy. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37,
545–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30163-0
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
36
Riessman, C. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Schaubroeck, J. M., & Yu, A. (2017). When does virtuality help or hinder teams? Core team
characteristics as contingency factors. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 635–
647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.009
Schecter, A., & Contactor, N. (2019). A dynamic sequence model of information sharing
processes in virtual teams. 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
2612–2621. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/59699
Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2016). Negotiate, reciprocate, or cooperate? The impact of exchange
modes on inter-employee knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(4),
687–712. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2015-0394
Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M., & Ernst, H. (2014). Subjective distance and team collaboration in
distributed teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 765–779.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12122
Sivunen, A., Nurmi, N., & Koroma, J. (2016). When a one-hour time difference is too much:
Temporal boundaries in global virtual work. 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences (HICSS), 511–520. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.70
Tenzer, H., Pudelko, M., & Harzing, A.-W. (2014). The impact of language barriers on trust
formation in multinational teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 508–535.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.64
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
37
Torro, O., & Pirkkalainen, H. (2017). Strengthening social ties via ICT in the organization. 50th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 5511–5520.
https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.666
Webster, L., & Mertova, P. (2007). Using narrative inquiry as a research method: An
introduction to using critical event narrative analysis in research on learning and
teaching. Routledge.
Wingard, J. (2020, March 3). Leading remote workers: The coronoavirus’ impact on effective
management. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonwingard/2020/03/13/team-
working-at-home-because-of-coronavirus-heres-how-to-lead-them-
effectively/#64f15b713162
Wu, W.-L., & Lee, Y.-C. (2017). Empowering group leaders encourages knowledge sharing:
Integrating the social exchange theory and positive organizational behavior perspective.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2), 474–491. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-08-
2016-0318
Yilmaz, G. (2016). What you do and how you speak matter: Behavioral and linguistic
determinants of performance in virtual teams. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 35(1), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X15575772
Yilmaz, G., & Pena, J. (2015). How do interpersonal behaviors and social categories affect
language use?: The case of virtual teams. Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 427–443.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1058285
Zuofa, T., & Ochieng, E. G. (2017). Working separately but together: Appraising virtual project
team challenges. Team Performance Management, 23(5/6), 227–242.
https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-06-2016-0030
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
38
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3704691
