To demonstrate the diversity of the definitions of innovation and to press the case for the development of an integrative definition, the article offers a few examples of definitions of organizational innovation where some emphasize different aspects of innovation and others are dedicated to a discipline. Ultimately some 60 definitions of innovation were collected from the various disciplinary literatures, and analyzed in order to get to one multidisciplinary definition of innovation.

Introduction

Organizations need to innovate in response to changing customer demands and lifestyles and in order to capitalize on opportunities offered by technology and changing marketplaces, structures and dynamics. Organizational innovation can be performed in relation to products, services, operations, processes, and people. There is agreement that in order to both sustain their competitive position and to strengthen it, organizations and economies must innovate and promote innovation. Innovation is a key policy and strategic issue. Innovation is tightly coupled to change, as organizations use innovation as a tool in order to influence an environment or due to their changing environments (internal and external). Different forms of innovation draw to varying extents on different teams, departments, and professional disciplines. Therefore, innovation is of interest to practitioners and researchers across a range of business and management disciplines, and has been discussed variously in, for example, the literature on human resource management, operations management, entrepreneurship, research and development, information technology, engineering and product design, and marketing and strategy. Whilst there is some overlap between the various definitions of innovation, overall the number and diversity of definitions leads to a situation in which there is no clear and authoritative definition of innovation.

Literature review

To demonstrate the diversity of the definitions of innovation and to press the case for the development of an integrative definition, the article offers a few examples of definitions of organizational innovation where some emphasize different aspects of innovation and others are dedicated to a discipline. Ultimately some 60 definitions of innovation were collected from the various disciplinary literatures, and analyzed in order to get to one multidisciplinary definition of innovation.

Results and discussion

Tables II and III show the attributes of innovation definitions that have been identified through the content analysis. These six attributes form the basis for an integrative definition of innovation, since they have been surfaced from key definitions drawn from different disciplinary areas.

These attributes are defined as follows:

• Nature of innovation refers to the form of innovation as in something new or improved
• Type of innovation refers to the kind of innovation as in the type of output or the result of innovation, e.g. product or service
• Stages of innovation refers to all the steps taken during an innovation process which usually start from idea generation and end with commercialization
• Social context refers to any social entity, system or group of people involved in the innovation process or environmental factors affecting it
• Means of innovation refers to the necessary resources (e.g. technical, creative, financial) that need to be in place for innovation
• Aim of innovation is the overall result that the organizations want to achieve through innovation.

On the basis of the key attributes of definitions of innovation and the descriptors used by those definitions to characterize the attributes, a diagrammatic definition of “innovation” is proposed in Figure 1. The diagram incorporates the six attributes identified as being common to the various disciplinary definitions of innovation.

Definition >> Innovation = The multi-stage process whereby organizations transform ideas into new/improved products, service or processes, in order to advance, compete and differentiate themselves successfully in their marketplace

The definition begins with the term “multi stage process” as most of the definitions presented earlier have highlighted that innovation is not a discrete act and is a process.

Secondly, the article focuses on business organizations in this paper, although it has not explicitly articulated in the textual definition that innovation can occur in various social entities and contexts.

Third, as shown in the diagram, many definitions have focused on the means of innovation, that is the ways in which ideas have been transformed into new, improved and changed entities, whether products or services, for example, for new markets.

Employing a geographically dispersed, and culturally diverse workforce helps multinational companies to compete in the current business environment. However, managers guiding multinational teams are up against tough challenges. One basic difference between global teams that work and ones that don’t lies in the level of social distance – the degree of emotional connection among team members. Mitigating social distance is the primary management challenge for the global team leader.

Global Teams That Work

Employing a geographically dispersed, and culturally diverse workforce helps multinational companies to compete in the current business environment. However, managers guiding multinational teams are up against tough challenges. One basic difference between global teams that work and ones that don’t lies in the level of social distance – the degree of emotional connection among team members. Mitigating social distance is the primary management challenge for the global team leader.

Neeley has come up with the SPLIT framework that identifies and manages social distance, and it consists of five components:

• Structure (and the perception of power): When talking about global teams, the structural factors that determine the social distance are the location and number of sites where team members are based, and the number of employees who work at each site. The major issue here is the perception of power. Example:
• When the majority of a group is situated in country A, and two or three in country B and C, there may be a sense that the members from group a have more power, whereas in the group A, members might feel resentment towards the minorities, believing that the latter will try to get away with contributing less than its fair share.
• When geographically dispersed team members perceive a power imbalance, they often come to feel that there are in-groups and out-groups. To correct perceived power imbalances between different groups, a leader needs to get three messages across:
  • Who we are: the leader should encourage sensitivity to differences but look for ways to bridge them and build unity
  • What we do: The team should be reminded that they share a common purpose have to direct their energy toward business-unit or corporate goals
  • I am there for you: Team members located far from the leader require frequent contact with him or her.
• Process (and the importance of empathy): Empathy helps to reduce social distance. Because geographically dispersed team members have less face-to-face time and are thus less likely to have a sense of mutual understanding, global team leaders need to build the following deliberate moments:
  • Feedback on routine interactions: Leaders and members of global teams must actively elicit reflected knowledge, or awareness of how others see them.
  • Unstructured time: Unstructured communication is positive, because it allows for the organic unfolding of processes that must occur in all business dealings. Small talk is a powerful way to promote trust.
  • Time to disagree: Leaders should encourage disagreement both about the team’s tasks and about the process by which the task gets done.
• Language (and the fluency gap): In global teams very often there are varying levels of fluency with the chosen common language, and this is likely to heighten social distance. For this reason, team members should respect three rules for communicating in meetings:
  • Dial down dominance: Strong speakers must slow down their speaking pace and limit the number of comments they make in a set time frame, as well as seeking for confirmation that they have been understood by the others.
  • Dial up engagement: Less fluent speakers should monitor the frequency of their responses in meetings to ensure that they are contributing.
  • Balance participation to ensure inclusion: Global team leaders must keep track of who is and isn’t contributing and deliberately solicit participation from less fluent speakers.
• Identity (and the mismatch of perceptions): Global teams function the smoothest when members ‘’get’’ where their team-members are coming from. Yet, decoding someone’s identity and relating can be very difficult. Behavior can be revealing, hence particular behavior might signify different things for different identities. In order to adapt to one another, the following has to be taken into consideration:
  • Learning from one another: When adapting to a new cultural environment, a savvy leader will avoid making assumptions about what behaviors mean. Therefore leaders should ask for information in order to get a sense of how someone truly feels. A leader ought to solicit input as to empower others on the team, leading them to participate more willingly and effectively.
• Technology (and the connection challenge): It must be carefully decided what types of communication will be used by global teams, as technologies can both reduce and increase social distance. When making this consideration, a leader must ask the following:
  • Should communication be instant?
  • Do I need to reinforce the message?
  • Am I leading by example?

The rise of global virtual teams is a phenomenon of globalization. At the same time, new information and communication technologies play an ever-increasing role in all aspects of global business relations, but are particularly important in the emergence of new global organizational work structures and virtual work environments. Information and communication technologies have been viewed as an indispensable tool for multinational corporations that choose to move beyond the geographic constraints of face-to-face employee interactions and endeavor to build a virtual workplace and/or use virtual teams as a new component of a generally traditional work structure. Whereas information and communication technologies are essential in the communication and knowledge-sharing processes for geographically dispersed employees, computer-facilitated communication.

Introduction

The rise of global virtual teams is a phenomenon of globalization. At the same time, new information and communication technologies play an ever-increasing role in all aspects of global business relations, but are particularly important in the emergence of new global organizational work structures and virtual work environments. Information and communication technologies have been viewed as an indispensable tool for multinational corporations that choose to move beyond the geographic constraints of face-to-face employee interactions and endeavor to build a virtual workplace and/or use virtual teams as a new component of a generally traditional work structure. Whereas information and communication technologies are essential in the communication and knowledge-sharing processes for geographically dispersed employees, computer-facilitated communication.

Technologies are only as effective as those using them. Even though information and communication technologies impact knowledge sharing, team coherence and performance, it is the human component in the virtual environment and the interactive relational bonds that facilitate or hinder the development of a shared knowledge culture and organizational learning. Creating a knowledge-based environment requires more than information and communication technology; it requires other crucial elements such as intra-team trust and intra-team relational bonds, leadership, intercultural communication competence, and cross-cultural training that foster a collaborative interactive permissive space.

This paper examines the following issues: (1) what are the cross-cultural challenges faced by global virtual teams?; (2) how do organizations develop a knowledge sharing culture to promote effective organizational learning among culturally-diverse team members? and; (3) what are some of the practices that can help maximize the performance of global virtual teams?

What and why global virtual teams?

Researchers suggest three main attributes for virtual teams;

1. it is a functioning team that is interdependent in task management, having shared responsibility for outcomes, and collectively managing relationships across organizational boundaries
2. Team members are geographically dispersed,
3. They rely on technology-mediated communications rather than face-to-face interaction to accomplish tasks. In essence, team members are not collocated and definitely use technology-mediated communication such as information and communication technologies.

Global teams = A team that is comprised of individuals located in many different countries or geographic areas, and team members differ in their functionality, which adds complexity to group dynamics. The main idea behind this concept is that people are both geographically dispersed and functionally diverse.

Global virtual teams are not only separated by time and space, but differ in national, cultural and linguistic attributes, and use information and communication technologies as their primary means of communication and work structure

The potential advantages of global virtual teams are that they can create culturally synergistic solutions, enhance creativity and cohesiveness among team members, promote a greater acceptance of new ideas and, hence, provide a competitive advantage for multinational companies. The possible disadvantages are that they tend to have more time consuming decision-making processes and when miscommunication and misunderstandings occur, stress and conflicts among team members are heightened and less easily dispelled.

There are two key issues (illustrated in Figure 1) to implement global virtual teams.

Culture and knowledge sharing base

Knowledge sharing is often facilitated by communication that involves the exchange of meaning. The process of communicating is dynamic, multifaceted and complex. Cultural conditioning affects the evaluation of experience as well as the means by which information and knowledge is conveyed and learned. When miscommunication occurs, particularly in a cross-cultural setting, the sender and receiver should be seen as both active participants engaged in knowledge transfer and culturally mediated discourse. The ability to communicate effectively in a cross-cultural setting resides in the abilities of all participants to successfully decode and encode messages so that they are understood within the others’ cultural contexts.

Moreover, in computer-mediated environments, the means by which information is transferred is flattened, less dynamic and thus may become less salient, possibly less easy to grasp, retain and learn.

National Cultural Effects on Global Virtual Teams Intra-team Dynamics

Individuals from different cultures vary in terms of their group behaviors and communications styles. Several research has found that;

• In order to understand the communication and behavioral priorities of those from a particular culture, one must understand the context in which they occur.
• High context culture = Relying heavily upon the external environment for behavioral cues where people value subtle and indirect communication styles
• Low context culture = Where the communication put less emphasis on non-verbal or behavioral cues, hence communication tends to be more direct, with an avoidance of ambiguity
• Hofstede’s four cultural dimensions framework (power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, and career success versus quality of life, originally labeled masculinity versus femininity) inform both global virtual team dynamics and can provide useful insight into how a shared knowledge culture can be constructed and how people interact in virtual teams

Organizational Culture Effects on Global Virtual Teams

Organizational culture is embedded in the national cultures in which an organization operates. Although both cultures play different roles, each influences the way things operate in multinational corporations.

Organizational or corporate culture = Includes the values and beliefs expressed in artefacts, symbols and practices as well as organizational language, traditions, myths, rituals, and stories. Another view: ‘It is the way we do things around here. In essence, corporate culture is the learned, shared, and tacit assumptions such as values, beliefs, and assumptions’

Information and communication technology as a facilitating tool for knowledge sharing

In information and communication technology-mediated environments where geographically dispersed and culturally diverse members electronically converse in English, the language used by members may further obscure intended meaning and hamper knowledge management when members assume that terms and slang in one English-language culture have identical meanings in another English language environment.

Individual team members need to be cognizant of English language variation in intra-team electronic communication, particularly in regards to tone, style, formality, salutations and closings, and aware that substantial sociolinguistic and grammatical variations exist within the global English-speaking community and will impact intra-team communications. Team members’ cultural differences in work emphasis, deadline adherence, project management style all need to be made transparent to the team and a synergistic team approach to each concern be mediated and agreed upon early in the team formation process. The role of information and communication technologies is regarded as a functional tool that facilitates the cross-cultural collaboration and communication. Information and communication technologies can provide a common medium for work and shared meaning.

Human challenges of virtual team membership

Understanding human challenges of virtual team membership in order to create a knowledge-sharing culture and capabilities provide numerous key implications for multinational corporations. What needs to be clearly emphasized and articulated here is the fact that teamwork is a culturally and linguistically bounded concept.

• Creating effective team leadership – Team leaders play a crucial role in effective global virtual team management and in creating a knowledge-sharing environment. The leader(s) co-ordinate activities/tasks, motivate team members, monitor and/or facilitate collaboration and address/resolve conflict. Team leadership must involve effective cross-cultural communication and understanding, ensure that there is a collective sense of belonging, and that team values, task assignment and plans are shared. Team leaders need to build intra-team participation, ensure that all ideas are heard, and monitor participation rates.
• Managing conflict and global virtual teams dynamics – In information and communication technologies-mediated environments, addressing conflict situations and even detecting the existence of conflict, is not always straightforward. For example, in one hand, avoidance behavior may indicate conflict in certain cultures. On the other hand, confrontational behavior can lead to conflict in other cultures. Global virtual teams need to anticipate potential areas of conflict in the formation stage and develop norms/rules around conflict resolution
• Developing trust and relationships – For global virtual teams, being both heterogeneous cultural entities and geographically dispersed virtual entities, the risk of potential misunderstandings and mistrust is heightened. Trust between group members as well as trust between the team and the organization is equally important. The ability to collaborate depends heavily upon trust as open reciprocity and sharing of information and knowledge will not freely occur without it.

According to some researchers, the formation of cross-cultural trust includes a reciprocal element in it and falls under two behavioral categories

• Credibility where one party (focal) believes that the other party (referent) has capabilities, competence, expertise and resources to make a successful exchange that meets outcome expectations. Focal also believes that referent will act in a reliable and predictable manner to meet the expectations.
• Benevolence includes beliefs about the emotional aspects of the referent’s behavior like positive intention to exchange. Such beliefs include a referent’s good will and that the referent will not jeopardize the exchange outcome, and will in fact support enhanced outcomes in the exchange.
• Understanding cross-cultural differences;
• Developing intercultural communication competences; Although using information and communication technologies can reduce certain cross-cultural barriers, team members need cross-cultural training to gain the desired cognitive, affective and behavioral competencies. These competencies respectively mean that people need to understand and recognize cultural differences; feel comfortable with various cultures; and thus act accordingly to suit cultural differences.

As a summary for practical suggestions, Table 1 highlights the need for numerous knowledge, skills and abilities in order for global virtual teams to work effectively in a virtual environment.

Distributed teamwork has become commonplace within and among organizations. Indeed, nearly two-thirds of U.S. employees have engaged in virtual work. These individuals often work as part of a distributed team that consists of members from various cultural and national backgrounds.

Introduction

Distributed teamwork has become commonplace within and among organizations. Indeed, nearly two-thirds of U.S. employees have engaged in virtual work. These individuals often work as part of a distributed team that consists of members from various cultural and national backgrounds.

Prevalence of MNMC distributed teams

Research showed that diverse and distributed teams are becoming the norm for businesses and governments around the world because of the increased opportunities they provide. Although team members may work across major time zone differences, across internal business units, and across cultures, they can perform effectively.

Although the ability to use a wider resource base may be an advantage of MNMC distributed teams, these teams can present some challenges. Some researchers warn that 50 per cent of virtual teams would fail to meet either strategic or operational objectives due to the inability to manage the distributed workforce implementation risks. Also, the demands of working in a MNMC distributed team can be taxing to team members. As one professional explains in an article depicting her MNMC distributed team experiences, “There are delays in response and communication, and in such cases I might lose a day instead of a few hours… Communication and collaboration can take up a significant chunk of project time”. Understanding how to maintain effective MNMC distributed teams that meet the needs of both the team members and organization presents a challenge to both practitioners and researchers.

What constitutes culture in MNMC Distributed teams research

The current work on MNMC distributed teams, however, often has focused on a geographical facet, conceiving of culture in terms of broad national differences. Hofstede’s work is very often used to assess cultural differences in teams;

• Individuals from the individualistic culture were perceived as transferring more knowledge than those from the collectivist culture
• The conclusion is that globally distributed teams will be effective vehicles for knowledge sharing in an organization as long as individuals learn the cultural logic of others’ divergent beliefs. If not, culture is constructed as something which divides individuals
• In virtual teams, the individualism–collectivism dimension is an important dimension of culture as it reflects the extent to which members are inclined toward teamwork and open to accommodating others ’views’

This paragraph is about research that is done on MNMC distributed teams and culture. There appears to be a strong focus on nationality when investigating culture in this body of research, and several researchers rely on Hofstede’s dimensions. Scholars also examine team composition, often referred to as cultural heterogeneity. Some findings suggest that cultural differences matter, whereas other research suggests that they may not in teams that experience high trust or regular communication. Further research exploring these issues is needed.

The role of distance in MNMC distributed teams

Distance is viewed as both a challenge and as a nonissue to MNMC distributed teams. Although some work continues to frame distribution as a constraint, some empirical findings suggest that distribution does not impair MNMC distributed team collaboration or performance. This variation points to the need for future research to clarify the role of distribution and its effects (or lack thereof) on team processes and outcomes. Moreover, it should be noted that generally, previous empirical research on MNMC distributed teams tends to treat distance as a discrete difference (i.e., the team is distributed or it is not distributed). Although few empirical studies explicitly frame distance as a step function, an implicit argument in several articles reviewed here is that greater distance places more constraints on teams.

Recurring themes in existing MNMC Distributed Teams research

Scholars interested in MNMC distributed teams have examined several topics, See Table 1. Some of these topics are highlighted in the articl:

• Communication; This research has been concerned with pointing to communicative behaviors that are deemed effective in MNMC teams. Two behaviors emerge somewhat consistently in this research: frequent communication and face-to-face communication
  • Frequent communication. Several of these works suggest that communication frequency is a necessary ingredient in MNMC distributed team effectiveness. For instance, frequent informal and unplanned communication has been shown to be related to shared identity and shared context
  • Face-to-Face communication. Some articles privilege face-to-face communication as necessary for MNMC distributed team effectiveness. Face to face is found to be beneficial to reducing task conflict, fostering trust, and enhancing team dynamics
• Conflict. Several researchers found that: (a) the way virtual team members manage conflict is crucial in their success performance, and (b) temporal coordination has some significant moderating effects on team performance. They examine conflict in terms of specific conflict management behaviors, including avoidance, accommodation, competition, collaboration, and compromise.
• Temporality. These articles note relationships between temporality and MNMC distributed teams

MNMC distributed teams have several features

• They involve various types of dispersion beyond temporal and spatial dispersion. Distributed teams are geographically distributed in that they are separated by (great) physical distance (different cities, different countries)
• MNMC distributed teams may be permanent or temporary. In much of the current research, scholars conceive of these teams as temporary
• Although members of MNMC distributed teams often communicate via technological means, they may not communicate exclusively in this manner. Indeed, as many of the articles reviewed indicate, some teams may choose to meet face to face, deeming it necessary for team effectiveness
• They are made up of members who self-define as being (or are considered to be) from two or more national (nation-states), ethnic, and/or cultural backgrounds

Suggestions for further research

• Adopt Multi-Faceted, Multi-Level Views of Culture
• Future researchers should expand their conceptualization of culture to include not only multiple nationalities and demographics but also multiple team and organizational cultures.
• Acknowledge the Complexities of Distribution
• Future research must take into account the variation in distribution
  • Degree of virtuality. Virtuality (space, time, modality) is a matter of degree, and teams may be considered highly virtual or less virtual. 

A team’s degree of virtuality relates to the richness of the communication media typically used by members to accomplish tasks and the extent to which team members are separated by time and space.

• Degree of distribution. Another type of variation among distributed teams concerns whether the team is partially or fully distributed. Partially distributed teams occur when some team members are distributed across various locations, whereas other team members are collocated.
• History of the team. As in any team, prior knowledge about team members or experience working with a particular group of individuals can affect team dynamics.
• Degree of (im)permanence. The relative permanence of the team has also been argued to be a feature of distributed teams. Other scholars note that virtual teams can be temporary work forms, where “members have never worked together before, and who may not expect to work together again as a group”
• Degree of task complexity. Essentially,more complex tasks require higher levels of interdependence within a team, which can have an effect of many of these team processes, depending on where the team lies on other continua.
• When Are Culture and Distribution Consequential to Teams?

Third, future research must look at how a multifaceted view of culture and these complexities of distribution relate to each other in influencing team processes and outcomes. For example, in combining the complexities of distribution (partially vs. fully distributed) with the complexities of culture, one may wonder if a team that is partially distributed may be challenged (or enhanced) by the subcultures that may arise as a result of different locations.