Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275 – 294

www.socscinet.com/bam/humres

Challenges to staffing global virtual teams

Michael Harvey *, Milorad M. Novicevic, Gary Garrison
University of Mississippi, University, MS 38766 USA

Abstract

One of the most critical organizational capabilities is learning to adapt to the new hypercompetitive global
landscape. The capabilities needed in this evolving competitive context are increasingly employee centric,
particularly when related to those employees who are performing knowledge-based teamwork in structures like
global virtual teams (GVTs). This paper is an attempt at examining the organizational role of GVTs and the
associated challenges for human resource management (HRM). A combination of agency –dynamic capabilities
theoretical perspective is used to explore the staffing issues associated with GVTs in an effort to capture members’
tacit knowledge that is increasingly viewed as an organization’s key value-generating resource. Particular
implications for the human resource managers in matching global virtual team member diversity to the specific
tasks contexts are outlined in the paper. Finally, challenges to HRM in managing global virtual teamwork/
‘taskwork’ are explored.
D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Global virtual teams; Staffing; Internal diversity; Virtual management; Globalization

As the nature of work in today’s organizations becomes more complex, dynamic, and global, there has
been an increasing emphasis on distributed, ‘virtual’ teams as organizing units of work. (Kozlowski &
Bell, 2002)

1. Introduction

The changing performance landscape has forced organizations to adopt a more dynamic approach to
day-to-day operations to survive and compete successfully in the global virtual economy (Boudreau,
Loch, Robey, & Straub, 1998). Performance demands escalate, as accelerating hypercompetitive
interactions and disruptive technological changes create a complex environment that necessitates

* Corresponding author. School of Business Administration, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38766 USA. Tel.:
+1-662-915-5830; fax: +1-662-915-5821.
E-mail address: mharvey@bus.olemiss.edu (M. Harvey).

1053-4822/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.06.005
276 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294

organizational flexibility, innovativeness, improved communications, and management creativity (Gho-

shal & Bartlett, 1997; Zadek, Hojensgard, & Raynard, 2001). The development of these dynamic
capabilities requires strategic flexibility to permeate the entire global organization (1999; Thomas,
1996). Such a degree of strategic flexibility can be implemented only by the pursuit of multiple globally
distributed projects that are increasingly executed by global virtual teams (GVTs) (Lagerstrom &
Anderson, 2003; Lunnan & Barth, 2003; Goodall & Roberts, 2003).
A GVT, as defined by Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999, p. 792), is a ‘‘temporary, culturally diverse,
geographically dispersed, electronically communicating work-group of members. . .who think and act in
concert within the diversity of the global environment.’’ GVTs are rapidly becoming an effective form of
integrating distributed expertise that spans time, geographies, nationalities, and cultures (Prasad &
Akhilesh, 2002). The resulting collaboration across an organization’s globally dispersed workforce
provides for a dynamic global scope that has become a cornerstone to competing in the global
marketplace (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997; Schelin, 2001).
GVTs are commonly assigned the most critical organizational tasks, such as developing and launching
new global products, negotiating and managing cross-border acquisitions, mergers, and alliances, and
coordinating global account management programs (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000). As GVTs are
viewed by many practitioners and researchers as the nuclei of 21st century organizations (McDonough,
Kahn, & Barczak, 2001), their increasing use presents a major challenge to the human resource
management (HRM), particularly in terms of staffing (Pauleen, 2002).
The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of GVTs in global organizations, in general, and the
implications of GVTs for HRM functions, in particular. First, the dynamic capabilities theory is proposed
as the appropriate theoretical perspective to frame the GVT issues. Second, the advantages of using
GVTs are discussed, along with their inherent staffing issues. Third, a multidimensional framework is
developed to investigate the diversity issues related to GVT membership. Fourth, particular implications
for the HRM in matching diverse members of GVTs to the specific context of their tasks are outlined.
Finally, the challenges of HRM in managing global virtual teamwork/taskwork are discussed. Each of
these topics is presented in their respective sections of this paper.

2. HRM of GVTs: A combined agency–dynamic capabilities perspective

The dynamic capabilities theory has recently gained prominence in explaining the value-adding role of
HRM in organizations, as the traditional perspectives of organizational economics are increasingly
considered to possess limited ‘‘stand-alone’’ explanatory power due to their overly strong efficiency focus
(Barney, 1999; Barringer & Milkovich, 1998). In particular, agency theory perspective has emphasized
the HRM system design based on goal conflict and information asymmetry, while neglecting the role of
HRM in the creation and transfer of tacit knowledge across organizational entities and employees (Davis,
Schoorman, & Donaldson, 1997). In an organizational context, tacit knowledge refers to the accumulation
of expertise created by and contained within individual organizational members in a way that cannot be
codified but is valuable for an organization’s operational effectiveness (Grant, 1996).
As tacit knowledge is increasingly viewed as the key value-generating resource, dynamic capabilities
theory posits that an organization’s ability to acquire, develop, and deploy knowledge as a resource in a
dynamic way can influence its overall capabilities to achieve superior performance (i.e., competitive
advantage) in the marketplace (Dierickx & Cool, 1989). These capabilities are increasingly employee
 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294 277

centric, particularly when related to those employees who are performing knowledge-based teamwork in
structures like GVTs (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1998). The importance of knowledge sharing among
knowledge workers suggests that agency theory should be broadened to incorporate the capabilities
derived from the dynamic teamwork of an organization’s employees (Sherer, Rogovsky, & Wright,
1998).
One of the most critical organizational capabilities is learning to adapt to the new performance
landscape, where adaptability requires the corporate structure to be simultaneously fixed and flexible
(Wright & Snell, 1998), and responsive to new opportunities emerging in the rapidly changing global
environment (Barney & Lee, 1998). An adaptive structure requires organizations to develop dynamic
capabilities to modify current practices in response to dynamic changes in the environment. For GVTs to
provide the integrating mechanism to dynamic structural changes, an appropriate human resource system
should be designed (Rowe & Wright, 1997) as a critical mechanism to support, control, and coordinate
GVTs over time (Pauleen, 2002). We therefore propose:

Proposition 1a. The more diverse an organization’s needs for global strategic flexibility are, the more
frequent its use of GVTs.

Proposition 1b. The more frequent an organization’s use of GVTs is, the greater the need for HRM to
devise specific GVT staffing criteria and to align the staffing solutions with appropriate GVT control
alternatives.

The design of an appropriate HRM system should take into account the notion that learning and
knowledge transfer processes evolve not only from the organizational level to GVTs, but also among
GVTs and from GVTs to the organizational level. In all of these processes, the individual member of a
GVT is the primary agent of knowledge sharing. From a combined agency-dynamic capabilities
perspective, the employee-centered learning emerges as the critical factor for HRM flexibility relative
to the organization’s strategy, but it also requires a commensurate HRM fit in terms of control options
(i.e., the HRM fit is particularly relevant to social and behavioral controls that go beyond the common
bureaucratic/outcome control that is not feasible for team-based work). The mechanisms of organiza-
tional control over GVTs need to align the HRM system with GVT staffing solutions to insure synergy
between the contextual performance of global virtual teamwork (i.e., interpersonal and self-management
competencies of GVT members to exhibit appropriate extra-role behaviors) and the task performance of
global virtual taskwork (i.e., functional and technical competencies of GVT members to exhibit
appropriate in-role behaviors; Prasad & Akhilesh, 2002; Stevens & Campion, 1994, 1999; see Fig.
1). The model shown in Fig. 1 is developed following the suggestion of Wright and Boswell (2002) to
develop models that make a synthesis of micro and macro HRM research by relating HR policies,
practices, and issues to organization-level mechanisms and phenomena.
Social control over learning processes, supported by the interpersonal and self-management
competencies of GVT members, is important because it embeds social relationship within the
organization’s structure, creating trust linkages among GVT members and across other teams (McDo-
nough, Kahn, & Griffin, 1999). In turn, such personal and professional trust increases the commitment of
teams and their members to the organization and ultimately creates a motivated and empowered
workforce whose performance goals in teamwork are aligned with those of an organization’s
management (Arthur, 1994). Social control has important implications for HRM because it is commonly
278 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294

Fig. 1. HRM of GVTs.

 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294 279

carried out through appropriate GVT staffing (Edstrom & Galbraith, 1977). The integration of social
control and HR staffing function can facilitate flexibility and knowledge transfer, particularly over
barriers of cultural distance (Kostova, 1999), thus creating organizational advantage (Nahapiet &
Ghoshal, 1998). Social control is particularly valuable when the need for sharing tacit knowledge
increases over socially impoverished channels of virtual communication, where conflict may escalate
due to teamwork issues engendered by cultural differences in communication and problem-solving styles
and approaches. An efficient social control, implemented appropriately to mitigate possible escalation of
identity conflict issues in GVT teamwork, will narrow the gap between GVT staffing policy and practice.
In effect, organizational absorptive capacity can thus be enhanced, whereby a process for tacit
knowledge transfer becomes instantiated within the organization’s culture of global virtual teamwork
(Szulanski, 1996). It can therefore be proposed:

Proposition 2. The more diverse are the GVT teamwork issues (i.e., member identity conflict caused by
communication barriers and free-riding that suppress knowledge sharing and learning), the more likely
social control will be used for the HRM function to align the GVT staffing policy and practice.

In contrast to social control that emphasizes norms of teamwork, behavioral control emphasizes the
process, planning, and execution of coordinated taskwork (Wright & Snell, 1998). Specifically,
behavioral control focuses information exchanges internally among GVT members at all levels and
externally throughout the organization and with its stakeholders. The senior management, in general, and
HRM, in particular, must acquire a richer understanding of the issues inherent with the GVT taskwork to
design behavioral controls effectively, given not only the diversity of membership in GVTs, which might
engender identity conflict, but also the changing context of their tasks, which might engender resource
conflict or resource allocation to complete the task. Such implementation of behavioral control is likely
to lead to adaptive flexibility of GVTs in the organization if integrated appropriately with the HRM
staffing approaches (Rowe & Wright, 1997). Successful integration may further lead to improved
taskwork of GVTs (Carmel, 1999; Scott & Einstein, 2001). It therefore can be proposed:

Proposition 3. The more frequent are the GVT taskwork issues (i.e., member resource conflict in
planning resource commitment activities to complete the assigned task,) the more likely social control
will be used for the HRM function to align the GVT staffing policy and practice.

In summary, the combined agency–capabilities perspective views a GVT not only as a processor of
information, but also as a locus where competencies are continuously built, managed, bundled,
transformed, and tested. It posits that a key to the success of controlling GVTs operating in a complex
environment, depends on the HRM system design, in general, and staffing solutions, in particular, as
they need to preserve the variety and mixture of GVT members’ competencies to create organizational
flexibility.

3. Staffing issues in GVTs

The major staffing challenges to such preservation of competencies in global virtual teamwork and
taskwork are (1) how to assess the unique competency demands for members to be involved in global
280 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294

virtual teamwork and taskwork and (2) how to devise an appropriate diversity of members to be involved
in global virtual teamwork and taskwork (Petrick, Scherer, Brodzinski, Quinn, & Ainina, 1999). These
challenges need to be examined by the HRM function, as context variation and cultural heritage have a
strong influence on a member’s task and interpersonal orientations (Rosenzweig & Nohria, 1994), which
may influence the manner in which the interactions within a GVT evolve (Jarvenpaa & Shaw, 1998).
Therefore, the human resource capacity to manage factors influencing the benefits and problems
associated with global virtual teamwork and taskwork and the ability of HRM to create an appropriate
perspective of diversity among GVT members may become an organization’s critical differentiating
capability that enhances its competency preservation (Lipnack & Stamps, 1997; Vanderbroeck, 1992;
Wright, Smart, & McMahan, 1995). Therefore, the following sections of this paper focus on the staffing
issues in a global teamwork and taskwork context necessitating diversity in the composition of GVT
membership.
A convenient approach to examining the uniqueness of competency demands for GVT membership is
to delineate them using the lens of differences that exist between GVTs and conventional (face-to-face)
global teams. First, face-to-face interactions through conventional meetings provide individuals with
gestures, nonverbal messages, social influence, and contextual cues that are usually absent or non-
transmittable among GVT members using computer-mediated communication technologies (Dennis,
1996; Straus, 1996). The issue that calls for the HRM awareness is that the lack of interactions through
face-to-face meetings in global virtual teamwork and makes consensus building more difficult for GVT
members (Straus, 1996). Therefore, individual members need to expend greater effort to increase the
team’s effectiveness in computer-mediated communication environments (Smith & Vanecek, 1990).
Additionally, difficulties in coordination and communication among team members can create a climate
of latent conflict in GVTs. If this climate is not managed correctly, the latent conflict can become
manifest and escalate (Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998). The resulting challenge to the HRM is to
identify members that will be competent to solve problems and resolve conflicts in GVTs by
communicating effectively in the virtual domain.
The HRM function can meaningfully assess the likelihood of conflict in GVTs by comparing GVTs
with conventional teams. Conventional teams tend to be more stable due to face-to-face interactions
providing team members with feelings of cohesion and social presence that can be further enhanced
through impromptu hallway meetings and lunch breaks (Arnison & Miller, 2002). In contrast, GVTs lack
the physicality of colocation and socialization-aided opportunities to develop long-term bonds.
Specifically, the dynamic nature of GVTs forces the existing members to accept new members without
the benefits of an evolving socialization process (Townsend, DeMarie, & Hendrickson, 1998). The
resulting challenge to the HRM is to identify members that will be competent to plan and coordinate
collaborative teamwork based on minimum social cues.
In addition, team membership in conventional teams is often stable throughout the life of the project,
whereas GVT membership is dynamic, with team members frequently leaving the team or new members
joining the team throughout the life of the project (Arrow & McGrath, 1993, 1995; Carmel, 1999).
Furthermore, conventional team members often share some similar skills due to cross training that is
intended to decrease the individuals’ dependence on other members, while GVT members are assembled
because of their individual expertise and specific problem-solving skills to accomplish highly task-
interdependent projects (Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995). Finally, because of the lack of task
visibility and structural boundaries present in GVTs, team leadership is very different than in
conventional teams, as global virtual teamwork is often marked by formal or informal self-management
 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294 281

(Markus, Manville, & Agres, 2000), accompanied with shared leadership (Nemiro, 2001). The resulting
challenge to the HRM is to identify members that will be competent to set their own goals quickly and
manage their own performance despite a changing virtual context and content of their teamwork.

4. The potential problems associated with GVTs

Given the nature of effective teamwork, the effectiveness of taskwork in GVTs can be enhanced by
tapping into the abilities and creativity of people distributed throughout the organization by selecting
those individuals with expertise that span various organizational boundaries (Townsend et al., 1998). As
effective use of globally dispersed expertise of GVT members improves taskwork in terms of quality,
cost, and time use, organizations can handle a greater number of projects without the cost and time
burdens associated with travel (Nemiro, 2001; Potter, Cooke, & Balthazard, 2000; Townsend et al.,
1998). The cooperation costs of GVTs are low, as these teams do not involve the physical interactions
associated with conventional teams. Moreover, the reporting in GVTs is more comprehensive, as they
use the communicating power of telecommunications and the computing intelligence of information
technologies to perform their work (Lipnack & Stamps, 1999; Townsend, DeMarie, & Hendrickson,
1996; Townsend et al., 1998).
The following example highlights the benefits of members’ expertise and cost-effective interactions in
GVTs. After the merger between Marion Laboratories and Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical (know today as
Marion Merrell Dow), trust between the two companies was low and competition to remain viable
between the merged organizations escalated as several production plants had closed. To create cohesion
and increase productivity, leadership created a GVT comprised of members from 11 different production
sites throughout Asia, Europe, and North America plus two additional members from global headquar-
ters. Thanks to the collaborative efforts/abilities between GVT members and their low interaction costs,
Marion Merrell Dow’s production sites, including those closed premerger, became highly productive and
provided the company with annual sales of approximately US$3 billion by the late 1990s (Marquart &
Horvath, 2001).
Although GVTs show significant promise of cost effectiveness and productivity for global organ-
izations, potential taskwork issues that team collaboration entails are plentiful and need to be addressed
by the HRM. First, the complexities and the difficulties of working with others, not only from differing
cultures, but also with others from differing functional backgrounds, are salient (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998)
and require nonstandard training solutions for cross-cultural and cross-functional communication relative
to workflow uncertainty and task complexity. Second, because the transitory nature of GVTs means that
members can participate in multiple teams simultaneously, communication issues may arise because the
reward system and the recognition of the team members are difficult to design in a consistent manner
(Scott & Einstein, 2001). Third, due to a reliance on the social and behavioral controls of GVTs, the
ability to measure individual effort or job performance in performance appraisal of GVTs is likely to be
low because bureaucratic outcome controls may be ineffective in fluid situations of global virtual
taskwork (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johanson, 1994). Finally, as virtual interactions lack the physical cues
present in face-to-face meetings, it is nearly impossible for virtual team members to observe each other’s
behaviors to establish informal rules or norms in terms of tolerances of effort, cost, schedule, and error
variations. Therefore, the instances for misunderstanding and nonconformance can be frequent (Kay-
worth & Leidner, 2001).
282 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294

Communication and information technologies have provided global organizations the tools and the
means for connecting GVT members who may be globally dispersed (DeSanctis & Poole, 1997; Prasad
& Akhilesh, 2002). While assembling GVTs may likely improve organizational performance by
reducing travel cost and decreasing project cycle time (Armstrong & Cole, 1995), the use of GVTs
also creates considerable challenges for the HRM of organizations that depend on the success of these
teams. As noted by Solomon (1995), many of these same challenges exist in colocated teams but are
more pronounced in virtual teams. Therefore, HRM needs to be particularly careful when aligning GVT
staffing with organizational control mechanisms, as GVTs are more prone to process losses than are
colocated teams (Shapiro, Furst, Sprietzer, & Von Glinow, 2002). These losses result not only from the
explicit external boundaries, but also from the implicit internal boundaries (i.e., geographic, temporal,
functional expertise, and departmental) that are faced by GVTs (Espinosa, Cummings, & Wilson, 2003;
Orlikowski, 2002).
In addition to staffing, another challenge to the HRM is to design an appropriate performance
appraisal process due to the difficulties associated with geographic separation, such as communication
delays, poor coordination efforts, and disparity in feedback cycles (Carmel, 1999; Herbsleb, Mockus,
Finlot, Grinter, 2000). Performance feedback design is also an HRM issue, as face-to-face meetings are
often impossible for GVTs, whose members are globally dispersed and therefore forced to become
reliant on communication and information technologies as their primary communication vehicle
(McDonough et al., 1999; Orlikowski, 2002).
The challenge to the HRM is not only the physical distance that affects the communication efforts
between team members, but also the actual time zone differences that affect team rhythm and unity (Lau
& Murnighan, 1998; Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000). The rationale for this situation to arise is best
articulated by Tim Miller, director of client services at San Diego-based BakBone Software, who claims
that it is difficult to attract the caliber of people the organization wants who are willing to work at 2:00
and 3:00 in the morning and on Saturdays and Sundays (Alexander, 2000). Such temporal issues (e.g.,
time zones and working hours) make the communication and coordination of activities difficult to
monitor, especially for those members who do not have overlapping work hours (O’Leary & Cummings,
2002), which can mean that some members are working while others are sleeping.
This lack of overlap requires members to communicate primarily through asynchronous communi-
cation methods (i.e., email and bulletin boards), rather than available synchronous modes (i.e.,
telephone or videoconferencing; Rice & Gattiker, 2001). These issues are challenging to the
HRM in designing appropriate performance feedback mechanisms because temporal coordination
problems arise, as communication is hindered by delayed feedback cycles and differing project
deadlines. Shell Europe Oil Products and Retail Network address these issues with infrequent face-to-
face meetings to establish the foundation for trust building and communication etiquette. However, to
strengthen the ‘‘communication node’’ in the team relationships, they have adopted NetMeeting to
alleviate the need for travel long distances to meet. Email, phoning, and scheduling software supplement
their virtual environment for sharing knowledge and experience with key customers (Qureshi & Zigurs,
2001).
In addition to the negative effects that geographical dispersion and temporal issues have on
communication effectiveness, a major HRM issue relative to the job-specific performance measure-
ment is often conflicting functional and cultural differences that are more likely to occur in GVTs
(Olson & Olson, 2000). Specifically, functional boundaries are expanded when different functional
areas are represented on the team (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Denison, Hart, & Kahn, 1996;
 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294 283

Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995). This diversity in functional expertise may negatively affect the GVT’s
performance by increasing the likelihood of task conflict and other disruptions in team processes (Jehn
& Northcraft, 1999; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). Espinosa et al. (2003) noted that as team
members became more functionally diverse, they tended to collaborate less effectively and demon-
strated weaker bonds than those established among team members of similar functional background.
When this situation is compounded by cultural diversity, it results in some members’ lack of
understanding of the unique specialization and terminology used by functionally diverse team
members (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johanson, 1994).
Another issue unique to GVTs and presenting a challenge to HRM is that team members can and do
cross-organizational boundaries without the established foundation of shared collaborative culture. In
contrast, conventional global teams have the privilege of socialization to create a shared collaborative
culture (Espinosa et al., 2003). By sharing the same culture, members of conventional global teams
would likely share an understanding of the authority roles assigned within the context of the team and
the organization (Espinosa et al., 2003; McDonough et al., 2001).
In contrast to the shared cultural understanding, individual perspectives of GVT members relative to
authority relationships may differ greatly between members (Espinosa et al., 2003) because of their lack
of co-location. Therefore, as GVT members are likely to have differing perspectives on what constitutes
desirable team behavior, other members’ actions will likely be interpreted differently (Shapiro et al.,
2002). As a result, the HRM faces the challenge of how to design an appropriate individualized/
institutionalized socialization program for GVT members. Jerry Roddy, Alcoa’s global leader, suggests
assuring sponsorship of socialization at both the business unit and the location level; while the business
unit is more important in the beginning, the location managers, who control the resources, become more
important in the long term (Marquart & Horvath, 2001).
In summary, the GVT-related implications for HRM are latent but extremely critical, as there is more
to GVTs than the technology networking the members together; it is the community of people behind the
technology that creates a successful working unit. According to Bob Buckman of Buckman Labs, the
success of GVTs should be attributed ‘‘90 percent to people and 10 percent to technology’’ (Lipnack &
Stamps, 1999). In other words, if the GVT-related HRM challenges are not addressed first, the
technology will be rendered useless (Lipnack & Stamps, 1999).

5. Global virtual team diversity: Staffing issues

Due to the complex environments in which GVTs operate, it is a staffing imperative that team
members talent, skill, and experience base need to be diverse. Traditionally, HRM has focused on
judging diversity based mostly on routinely administered communication proficiency, knowledge of
foreign languages, education/training, and years of work experience. A majority of these ‘‘tags’’ are
of a ‘‘biodata’’ nature and guided by discriminatory concerns related to compliance with employment
law (Dean, Russell, & Muchinsky, 1999; Hisrich, 1990). However, the key characteristics of
cognitive diversity that potential team members need to possess for effective GVT functioning are
to a large degree latent, thereby creating challenges for HRM when devising the GVT staffing
selection process.
As Stevens and Campion (1999, p. 223) suggest ‘‘the use of teams may require significant cognitive
abilities on the part of team members and not just the capacity to be congenial or sociable with other
284 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294

team members.’’ Therefore, the following cognitive–diversity characteristics of candidates pooled to

serve as GVT members are deemed of particular importance for effective GVT functioning: (1) multiple
IQs (e.g., political, network, social, emotional, cultural, innovative, intuitive, and organizational) critical
for effective GVT performance; (2) learning styles of potential GVT members (e.g., accommodator,
assimilator, diverger, or converger); (3) thinking styles of GVT members (e.g., monarchic, hierarchic,
oligarchic or anarchic); (4) level of teamwork experience on GVTs (short term being 1–3 years, medium
term being 4–6 years, and long term being over 6 years); (5) level of functional expertise reflected in
accomplishments and professional self-efficacy; and (6) capacity to adjust to new and/or novel
environments. Each of these diverse cognitive characteristics of individual GVT members (discussed
below), in combination with the traditional administrative characteristics of diversity, provide the
building components of a multiperspective HRM framework to assess the appropriate diversified blend
of GVT members in the selection process (see Table 1).

5.1. Multiple IQs

The selection of GVT members can start by using a set of multiple IQs as indicators of the diverse
abilities of each potential candidate. The set of multiple IQs should be grouped into three categories of
analytical, practices, and creative intelligence, as suggested by the triarchic theory of human intelligence
(Sternberg, 1985, 1996) (the references below represent background research on each IQ category), as
follows:

(A) Analytical intelligence—the planning, implementation, and evaluation of problem-solving processes

and knowledge acquisition, which include (1) cognitive intelligence (Binet & Simon, 1916;
Wechsler, 1950) and (2) emotional intelligence (Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Dulewicz, 2000; Gardner,
1999; Goleman, 1995).
(B) Practical intelligence—individual tacit knowledge that draws on common sense, intuition, and
‘street-smarts’ knowledge to adapt to an environment or to shape the environment to the
problem at hand (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Sternberg & Smith, 1985; Wagner & Sternberg,
1986).
(C) Creative intelligence—individual ability to develop innovative solutions to new problems
encountered in novel environments (Anderson, 2000; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995, 1996; Weick,
1998).

Table 1
Two aspects of membership diversity in GVTs
Dimensions of the formal administrative Dimensions of the informal cognitive aspect
aspect of membership diversity in GVTs of membership diversity in GVTs
Age Multiple IQs
Gender Learning style
Minority states Thinking style
Nationality Capacity to adjust
Education and training Functional expertise
Communication proficiency GVT experience
Knowledge of languages Affinity for global teamwork
 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294 285

The use of the multiple intelligences to identify potential GVT member candidates provides HRM
with a detailed inventory of the cognitive diversity base (for multiple IQs validation, see Sternberg &
Lubart, 1995). Once the ability inventory is taken, the next stage of the team member selection process is
to examine how the learning styles of potential candidates reflect their preferred style of learning new
competencies.

5.2. Learning styles

Researchers have developed a model of the learning process (Jensen & Kolb, 2000), in which the
learning process is envisioned as being active and passive, as well as, concrete and abstract. Based on
this model, the four states of the learning process are: (1) concrete experience, followed by (2)
observation and reflection, which leads to (3) the formation of abstract concepts and generalization,
which further engenders (4) hypotheses to be tested in future action, which closes the cycle and opens
the individual’s exposure to new experiences (Kolb, 1978). As individual stages of the learning cycle
may differ in the length of time, the learner will attempt to structure each stage of the learning cycle in a
formal or in an informal manner to be prepared for further learning (Curry, 2000; Jensen & Kolb, 2000;
Rayner, 2000). In addition to encompassing the four stages of the learning process, the model also
proposes four types of learning styles.
The four types of learning styles, which have been identified through research and clinical
observations over the past 30 years using the Learning Styles Inventory (Kolb, 1974, 1985; Vincent
& Ross, 2001), are:

(A) Divergent learning style—This style of learning reflects the view of concrete situations from many
perspectives to assemble it into a meaningful gestalt.
(B) Convergent learning style—The ‘‘converger’’ is an individual that has the ability to learn through
decomposing and abstracting both the problem and the context/setting of the problem.
(C) Assimilating learning style—Like the converger type learner, the assimilator type learner has the
ability to abstract complex problems/situations but, in contrast, uses inductive reasoning to find
possible solutions to problems at hand.
(D) Accommodative learning style—As this learning style is goal oriented, getting things done is the
primary purpose of individuals with this learning style. Such a learning style stimulates propensity to
risk taking, exploration of new opportunities, interaction with a diverse set of individuals, and
cognitive adaptation to unique environmental contexts (Vince, 1998).

The Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1985) can be administered to potential GVT members to
assist in determining how to complement their IQ inventories, as well as with the types of task
assignments that each individual member would be best suited to effectively accomplish relative to
his/her learning style. The learning style assessment becomes critical for the HRM in identifying
how the ongoing development of each GVT member should be undertaken, as well as in
appropriating task assignments for various GVT member candidates. Given that most candidates
will need to employ a combination of their IQs in acquisition of new competencies, learning style
analysis is a critical element in the selection process. Moreover, as the type of learning style
influences the relationship between the candidate’s IQs and critical thinking, the role and structure of
286 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294

his/her thinking styles in a competency-based selection process need to be explored by the HRM
(Gadzella & Masten, 1998; Vince, 1998).

5.3. Thinking styles

The multiple IQs and learning styles of GVT members are indicators of their potential to accumulate
competencies through GVT work. But just as with any potential, there must be a mechanism to turn that
potential into an action of value for the organization. The first step in the assessment of candidates’
potential for action starts with determining their thinking styles (Sternberg, 1997). An individual
thinking style is a preferred way of thinking, which is not the natural or acquired ability but rather, the
way an individual translates his/her ability and learning into intent to act. In other words, team member
thinking styles involve integrative utilization of their cognitive abilities and learning styles.
It would be valuable for the HRM to assess the GVT candidates in terms of their individual thinking
styles, using the following classification suggested by Sternberg (1997):

(A) Monarchical thinking style—the single-minded individual who is driven to succeed focusing on
either the self-set or assigned objectives, but is less likely to be strongly influenced or distracted by
the environmental uncertainty (i.e., the team member with high goal commitment and achievement
orientation); therefore, these individuals are likely to exhibit a tendency to take over either formal of
informal GVT leadership role.
(B) Hierarchical thinking style—the individual thinking style that is based on setting priorities, making
trade-offs, and recognizing that not all goals can be reached; therefore, these individuals tend to
establish priors for others in the GVT (i.e., the team member providing an agenda with a set of
priorities for the team).
(C) Oligarchial thinking styles—a thinking style that is based upon a propensity to analyze how to do
more than one thing at a time to express the willingness to undertake multitask assignments.
(D)Anarchical thinking style—the individuals who often lack the focus in their thinking, frequently
appear to be disorganized or random in their thinking processes, but sometimes may offer highly
creative solutions; therefore, these individuals are valuable sources of team creativity but, often
have difficulty making adjustments to the pace of GVT work when it becomes dynamic
(Sternberg, 1997).

For the HRM, knowing the thinking styles of individual GVT members prior to their team
assignments can be helpful in selecting appropriate members for particular team tasks. The type of
the team task can differentially influence the relationship between individual thinking styles and the
necessary team-level execution of tasks. Some thinking styles of team members are more effective to
solve novel, less structured, and complex problems (i.e., creative tasks), which allow the team members
to think on their own. These team member candidates are more willing to come up with their own way of
doing things and prefer to decide for themselves what they will do and how they will do it (Sternberg,
1997). In contrast, there are those who prefer to follow existing routines and procedures (i.e.,
computational tasks), while others may only want to improve the efficiency of the processes (i.e.,
coordinative tasks; Hambrick, Davidson, Snell, & Snow, 1998).
In addition to the thinking styles of individual GVT members, their self-confidence (self-efficacy that
increases with the GVT experience) also influences their actions in the teamwork. In other words, self-
 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294 287

efficacy increases with GVT experience (i.e., the length/number of times a member has participated on a
team), as well as the level of success that they experience, (Bandura, 1988; Gist & Mitchell, 1992;
Staples, Hulland, & Higgins, 1998). In turn, the higher the individual GVT member’s self-efficacy, the
greater the likelihood the individual will make a contribution to the success of the team in the future
(Silver, Mitchell, & Gist, 1995; Staples et al., 1998). Also, the functional expertise and skills that are
amassed by the team member, as a result of a GVT experience, are valuable and can be applied to current
and future GVT tasks. The level of expertise goes, however, beyond the number of years of experience
and the level of education/training a team member acquires, as it should also encompass the reputation
the team member has established in his/her field of profession. In summary, all of these factors should be
explored by HRM and integrated into the calculus of insuring appropriate diversity in GVT staffing
decisions.

6. Managerial means to address staffing issues inherent in GVTs

Given the unique problems associated with staffing GVTs and the increased importance of
appropriately identifying and addressing diversity of GVT members, HR managers must be aware of
the critical junctures in staffing GVTs. To that end, Fig. 2 illustrates the managerial steps that are
necessary to increase the probability of successfully assembling and managing a GVT (see Fig. 2).

6.1. Assessment of the need for GVT

The initial step in the managerial process to address the unique dimensions of GVT is a critical
assessment of why GVT are to be used in the organization. The rationale for using a GVT may be a
reactive or proactive strategy of the paper of management. Reactive motivation may be that customers or
channel of distribution intermediaries in foreign countries have requested/demanded that a coordinated
or unified effort on their account be provided by the focal organization. One example of this type of
reactive GVT may be the formation of a global account management program in the focal organization.
Global account management teams are used to manage the relationship with key accounts on a global
basis. But, frequently these account management teams are required by global customers to help insure
consistency of programs and continuity of management on a global basis. The proactive alternative is
that the focal organization recognizes that a competitive advantage can be gained by adopting a global
account management strategy and uses the strategy to differentiate itself from other suppliers in the
marketplace (Table 1).

6.2. Assessment of taskwork of the GVT

Tasks that the GVT face can be categorized into three types:

(1) Coordinative tasks—tasks that are integrative in nature and can be illustrated by the following types
of tasks: developing a marketing plan, initiating an organizational change in a foreign subsidiary, or
selecting foreign suppliers. These tasks require a finely orchestrated interaction between a GVT
and the external organization where the GVT is located at their boundary, and where speed, accuracy,
and reliance are essential for the GVT to accomplish such tasks successfully.
288 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294

(2) Computational tasks—more structured tasks that require utilization of an established body of
knowledge and techniques for successful accomplishment. There is less ambiguity in these tasks, and
there is a known beginning and ending point in the set of activities comprising these tasks, while
most computational tasks are fairly procedural and may require a great deal of effort on the part of the
GVT.
(3) Creative tasks—tasks that do not have ‘‘proven’’ answers or processes to find their solution and are
dependent on the creative insights of the GVT members to find acceptable solutions.

An additional relevant attribute of a task is the difficulty of the tasks that the GTV are attempting to
resolve. In the determination of the relative ‘‘difficulty,’’ there are three dimensions of the task that have
to be taken into consideration:

(1) The complexity of the task structure—the array of potential alternative solutions, the number of cues/
information sources relative to the task, the relationship between cues and criterion for solution of the
task, and the number of steps or phases to the task.
(2) Ambiguity of the task content—organizing principles of the task unknown or unavailable, previous
experiences of GVT members with the task limited or not existent, high likelihood of failure/partial

Fig. 2. Step-by-step management decision process for GVTs.

 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294 289

failure, and cues not clear as to how to frame the problem or organize the information to solve the
task.
(3) Form of task presentation—only a brief time span available for judgment, judgment of cues
dependent on perceptional predisposition of the GVT members. The greater the overall complexity
of the task, the more skilled, and ‘‘intelligent’’ (i.e., use of multiple IQs) the GVT must be to address
the cognitively demanding nature of global assignment tasks (Sternberg, 1996).

6.3. Assessment of environments in which the GVT will be operating

On the face of it, the location of the GVT would appear to be a moot point in that, the team is global
by nature. But the strategy of the focal organization could be global in nature but specific to particular
regions or types of markets (i.e., transition or emerging economies). The greater difference between the
home country environment and those countries in which the GVT are operating increases the problems
with successfully accomplishing the goals of the team. The greater the diversity of environmental
context the greater the GVT’s effort will have to be. Therefore, the HRM must examine the environment
in making an assessment of the potential goals and determine the success of each GVT. To enrich the
service provided to global customers of the organization, the expertise of the GVT has to ‘‘fit’’ in the
knowledge context of the GVT’s goals and the organization in which they reside (Bender & Fish, 2000).

6.4. Assessment of size/composition of the GVT

The size of the GVT will depend a great deal on the specific objectives that the team is to accomplish
over a stated time period. The tasks may require a larger team to assemble the necessary skill base and to
have a sufficient cadre of team members to address the complex problems facing global organizations.
The size of the GVT, to a degree, will also be dependent on the nature of the task given the functional
training (i.e., marketing, production, accounting, finance, and the like) of team members. The functional
orientation of the GVT members will dictate the capabilities of the team and how many members will be
needed to cover the functional demands on the team.

6.5. Performance appraisal metrics for the GVT

One of the more difficult tasks associated with GVT is to develop a means to determine if the team is
accomplishing the goals of the team and is performing in an effective as well as efficient manner.
Beyond measuring the accomplishment of explicit tasks assigned the GVT, there are a number of
implicit expectations of GVTs that also need to be determined. These ‘soft operating targets’ could
include such items as global customer service level, satisfaction, and willingness to continue and/or
expand the global relationship with the focal organization. There needs to be continuity of metrics for
each GVT, as well as between GVTs.

6.6. Establishing/implementing GVT performance assessment

Beyond establishing the metrics to determine the performance of GVTs, there must also be a
commensurate evaluation process put into place that goes beyond the normal performance appraisal
efforts of the organization. The need for a dedicated performance assessment process for GVTs is based
290 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294

upon the unusual nature of the team itself. Just being global, would make the assessment process more
difficult but added to that is the virtual nature of the team members’ relationship. This lack of group
intimacy (i.e., having limited if any face-to-face contact) can reduce the continuity of relationships and
willingness to be assessed as a team. A lack of each GVT members’ realization, that their team has to
have a component of performance evaluation based on team performance, could reduce the potential
synergistic outcomes that one would expect in a well-established group. The combination of global and
virtual dimensions of the GVT makes the performance assessment process significantly more difficult
and one that HRM management must address if the GVT concept is to reach its potential.

7. Conclusion

The establishment of teamwork/taskwork that is both virtual in context and global in scope has
opened a new set of opportunities for organizations to reap the benefits of their global activities
(Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; McDonough et al., 2001). The design of appropriate HRM systems and IT
infrastructure to support GVTs is, however, challenging, as the communication among the GVT
members is influenced by geographical distance, work-cycle synchronicity, and cultural differences
between the working units of the GVT members (Kozlowski & Bell, 2002; Stough, Eom, &
Buckenmyer, 2000).
The communication technologies and IT infrastructure, which successfully facilitate the dynamic
flexibility of global virtual teamwork and taskwork, also augment the importance of staffing and other
HRM practices. Therefore, an HRM system addressing the needs of GVTs should not only focus on the
aggregate talent of the organization’s employees, but also on the globally coordinated virtual deployment
of this talent in teams dispersed across the organization’s network of relationships.
This broader involvement of HRM requires a new approach to decision making about team-based
staffing in terms of developing innovative ways of organizing and managing people within global
networks (i.e., new and systemic staffing solutions for global team-based management, high involve-
ment of diverse employees, and effective and meaningful communication across cultures). These
emerging HRM practices can succeed in developing a multicultural and team-based culture of
collaboration by focusing more on HRM innovations and less on mere modifications of traditional
HRM policies. Only future empirical research can assess what HRM innovations will be appropriate for
training for GVTs (on-the-job vs. off-the job), compensation for GVTs (share of ‘‘pay for GVT skill’’),
and career planning (i.e., internal mobility vs. external mobility).

References
Alexander, S. (2000, November). Virtual teams going global. InfoWorld (http://archive.infoworld.com/articles/ca/xml/00/11/13/
001113cavirtual.xml).
Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization
Science, 3(3), 321 – 341.
Anderson, J. (2000). Intuition in managers: Are intuitive managers more effective? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(1),
46 – 63.
Armstrong, D., & Cole, P. (1995). Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In S. E. Jackson,
& M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace ( pp. 187 – 215). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294 291

Arnison, L., & Miller, P. (2002). Virtual teams: A virtue for the conventional team. Journal of Workplace Learning, 14(4),
166-1 – 166-3.
Arrow, H., & McGrath, J. (1993). Expanded theoretical analyses of membership dynamics in teams are provided in. Mem-
bership matters: How member change and continuity affect small team structure, process, and performance. Small Team
Research, 24, 334 – 361.
Arrow, H., & McGrath, J. (1995). Membership dynamics in teams at work: A theoretical framework. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M.
Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 17 (pp. 373 – 411). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Arthur, M. (1994). The boundaryless career: A new perspective for organizational inquiry. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
15(4), 295 – 306.
Bandura, A. (1988). Reflection on nonability determinants of competence. In R. J. Sternberg, J. Kolligian Jr. (Eds.), Compe-
tence considered: Perceptions of competence and incompetence across the lifespan (pp. 315 – 362). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Barney, J. (1999, Spring). How a firm’s capabilities affect boundary decisions. Sloan Management Review, 40(3), 137 – 146.
Barney, J., & Lee, W. (1998). Governance under uncertainty: Transactions costs, real options, learning, and property rights.
Reference No. 124140. Fisher College of Business, Ohio State University.
Barringer, M., & Milkovich, G. (1998, April). A theoretical exploration of the adoption and design of flexible benefit plans: A
case of human. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 305 – 325.
Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). In C. Bartlett, & S. Ghoshal (Eds.), Managing across borders: The transnational solution
(2nd ed.). Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
Bender, S., & Fish, A. (2000). The transfer of knowledge and the retention of expertise: The continuing need for global
assignments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 125 – 137.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The intelligence of the feeble-minded p. 366. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkens (Elizabeth.
S Kite, Trans.).
Boudreau, M., Loch, K., Robey, D., & Straub, D. (1998). Going global: Using information technology to advance the
competitiveness of the virtual transnational organization. Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 120 – 128.
Carmel, E. (1999). Global software teams: Collaborating across borders and time zones. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Cooper, R., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leadership and organizations. New York: Perigee
Books.
Curry, L. (2000). Review of learning style, studying approach, and instructional preference research in medical education. In
R. J. Riding, & S. G. Rayner (Eds.), International perspectives on individual differences. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Davis, J., Schoorman, F., & Donaldson, L. (1997). The distinctiveness of agency theory and stewardship theory. Academy of
Management Review, 22(3), 611 – 613.
Dean, M., Russell, C., & Muchinsky, P. (1999). Life experiences and performance prediction: Toward a theory of biodata. In G.
Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel/Human Resources, vol. 17 (pp. 245 – 281). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Denison, D., Hart, S., & Kahn, J. (1996). From chimneys to cross-functional teams: Development and validating a diagnostic
model. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 1005 – 1023.
Dennis, A. (1996). Information exchange and use in team decision making: You can lead a team to information, but you can’t
make it think. MIS Quarterly, 20, 433 – 458.
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. (1997). Transitions in teamwork in new organizational forms. In B. Majrkovsky (Ed.), Advances in
group processes ( pp. 157 – 176). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Dierickx, P., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and the sustainability of competitive advantage. Management
Science, 35, 1504 – 1511.
Dulewicz, V. (2000). Emotional Intelligence: The key to future successful corporate leadership. Journal of General Manage-
ment, 25(3), 1 – 13.
Edstrom, A., & Galbraith, J. (1977). Alternative policies for international transfers of managers. Management International
Review, 17(2), 11 – 22.
Eisenhardt, K., & Tabrizi, B. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 84 – 110.
Espinosa, J., Cummings, J., Wilson, J., & Pearce, B. (2003, Spring). Team boundary issues across multiple global firms.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 157 – 190.
292 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294

Gadzella, B. M., & Masten, W. G. (1998). Relation between measures of critical thinking and learning styles. Psychological
Reports, 83(3), 1248 – 1250.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York, NY: Barrie Books.
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. (1997). The myth of the generic manager: New resource competencies for management roles.
California Management Review, 40(1), 92 – 107.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of
Management Review, 17(2), 183 – 211.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Goodall, K., & Roberts, J. (2003). Repairing managerial knowledge-ability over distance. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1153 –
1175.
Grant, R. M. (1996, Winter). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109 – 122.
Hambrick, D., Davidson, S., Snell, S., & Snow, C. (1998). When groups consist of multiple nationalities: Towards a new
understanding of the implications. Organizational Studies, 19(2), 181 – 206.
Herbsleb, J., Mockus, A., Finholt, T., & Grinter, R. (2000). Distance, dependencies and delay in a global collaboration
( pp. 319 – 328). New York: ACM Press.
Hisrich, R. (1990). Entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship. Special issue: Organizational psychology. American Psychologist,
45(20), 209 – 222.
Jarvenpaa, S., & Shaw, T. (1998, April). Global virtual teams: Integrating models of trust, organizational virtualness. Proceed-
ings of Virtual-Organizational Workshop, 27 – 28, 65 – 76.
Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in GVTs. Organization Science, 10(6), 791 – 815.
Jarvenpaa, S., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in GVTs. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 14(4), 29 – 64.
Jehn, K., & Northcraft, G. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in
workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741 – 763.
Jensen, P., & Kolb, D. A. (2000). Learning style and meaning making in conversation. In: R. J. Riding, & S. G. Rayner (Eds.),
International perspectives on individual differences. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. (2001). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18(3), 7 – 40.
Kolb, D. A. (1974). On management and the learning process. In D. A. Kolb, I. M. Rubin & J. M. McIntyre (Eds.),
Organizational Psychology: a book of readings. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Kolb, D. A. (1978). Learning style inventory technical manual. Boston, MA: McBer & Co.
Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning style inventory. Boston, MA: McBer and Company.
Kostova, T. (1999). Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 24(2), 234 – 247.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2002). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski
(Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 12. New York: Wiley.
Lagerstrom, K., & Anderson, M. (2003). Creating and sharing knowledge within a transnational team: The development of a
global business system. Journal of World Business, 38(2), 84 – 95.
Lau, D., & Murnighan, J. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultliness: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups.
Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325 – 340.
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. Ontario: Wiley.
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1999, January/February). Virtual teams: The new way to work. Strategy and Leadership, 14 – 19.
Lunnan, R., & Barth, T. (2003). Managing the exploration vs. exploitation dilemma in transnational ‘bridging teams. Journal of
World Business, 38(2), 110 – 126.
Markus, M., Manville, B., & Agres, C. (2000, Fall). What makes a virtual organization work—Lessons from the open source
world. Sloan Management Review, 42(1), 13 – 26.
Marquart, M., & Horvarth, L. (2001). Global teams: How top multinationals span boundaries and cultures with high-speed teamwork.
teamwork. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
Maznevski, M., & Chudoba, K. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organi-
zation Science, 11, 473 – 492.
McDonough, E., Kahn, K., & Barczak, G. (2001). An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and co-located new product
development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(2), 110 – 120.
 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294 293

McDonough, E., Kahn, K., & Griffith, A. (1999). Managing global product development teams: Achieving effective perfor-
mance by linking communication speed, complexity and scope. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 46(4),
123 – 136.
Mohrman, S., Cohen, S., & Mohrman, A. (1995). Designing team-based organizations: New forms for knowledge work. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organization advantage. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 242 – 266.
Nemiro, J. E. (2001, Winter/Spring). Connection in creative virtual teams. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 3(2),
92 – 112.
O’Hara-Devereaux, M., & Johanson, R. (1994). Global work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
O’Leary, M., & Cummings, J. (2002). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in
teams. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Denver, CO (available as MIT working paper no 148).
Olson, G., & Olson, J. (2000). Distance matters. Human – Computer Interaction, 15(1), 139 – 179.
Orlikowski, W. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science,
13(3), 249 – 273.
Pauleen, D. (2002). Leadership in a global virtual team: An action learning approach. Leadership and Organization Devel-
opment Journal, 24(3), 153 – 162.
Pelled, L., Eisenhardt, K., & Xin, K. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1 – 28.
Petrick, J., Scherer, R., Brodzinski, J., Quinn, J., & Ainina, M. (1999). Global leadership skills and reputational capital:
Intangible resources for sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 58 – 69.
Potter, R., Cooke, R. A., & Balthazard, P. (2000). Virtual team interaction: Assessment, consequences, and management. Team
Performance Management, 6(7/8), 131 – 147.
Prasad, K., & Akhilesh, K. (2002). Global virtual teams: What impacts their design and performance. Team Performance
Management: An International Journal, 8(5/6), 102 – 112.
Qureshi, S., & Zigurs, I. (2001). Paradoxes and prerogatives in global virtual collaboration. International Journal of Intercul-
tural Relations, 23(4), 629 – 658.
Rayner, S. (2000). Reconstructing style differences in thinking and learning: Profiling learning performance. In R. J. Riding, &
S. G. Rayner (Eds.), International Perspectives on Individual Differences. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Rice, R., & Gattiker, U. (2001). New media and organizational structuring. In F. Jablin, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new
handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods ( pp. 544 – 581). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Rosenzweig, P., & Nohria, N. (1994). Influences on human resource management practices in multinational corporations.
Journal of International Business Studies, 25(2), 229 – 251.
Rowe, W., & Wright, P. (1997). Related and unrelated diversification and their effect on human resource management controls.
Strategic Management Journal, 18, 329 – 338.
Schelin, R. (2001). TeleCon: An e-learning adventure? E-learning Magazine (http://www.elearningmag.com/issues/apr01/
experiences.asp).
Scott, S., & Einstein, W. (2001, May). Performance appraisal in team-based organizations: One size does not fit all. Academy of
Management Executive, 15(2), 89 – 102.
Shapiro, D., Furst, S., Spreitzer, G., & Von Glinow, M. (2002). Transnational teams in the electronic age: Are team identity and
high performance at risk? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 455 – 467.
Sherer, P., Rogovsky, N., & Wright, N. (1998). What drives employment relationships in taxicab organizations? Linking agency
to firm capabilities and strategic orientations. Organization Science, 9, 34 – 48.
Silver, W., Mitchell, T., & Gist, M. (1995). Responses to successful and unsuccessful performance: The moderating effect of
self-efficacy on the relationship between performance and attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 62(3), 286 – 299.
Smith, J., & Vanecek, M. (1990). Dispersed team decision making using non-simultaneous computer conferencing: A report of
research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(2), 71 – 92.
Solomon, C. (1995, September). Global teams: The ultimate collaboration. Personnel Journal, 74(9), 49 – 58.
Staples, D., Hulland, J., & Higgins, C. (1998, June). A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers
in virtual organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4), 57 – 68.
294 M. Harvey et al. / Human Resource Management Review 14 (2004) 275–294

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The triarchic theory of intelligence. In D. P. Flannagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.),
Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues ( pp. 92 – 104). New York: Guilford Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free
Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 677 – 688.
Sternberg, R. J., & Smith, C. (1985). Social intelligence and decoding skills in nonverbal communication. Social Cognition,
3(2), 168 – 192.
Stevens, M., & Campion, M. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability for teamwork: Implications for human resource
management. Journal of Management, 20(2), 503 – 530.
Stevens, M., & Campion, M. (1999). Staffing work teams: Development and validation of a selection test for teamwork setting.
Journal of Management, 25(2), 207 – 228.
Stough, S., Eom, S., & Buckenmyer, J. (2000). Virtual teaming: A strategy for moving your organization into the new millennium.
Industrial Management and Data Systems, 100(8), 370 – 378.
Straus, S. (1996). Getting a clue: The effects of communication media and information distribution on participation and
performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Small Team Research, 27, 115 – 142.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 17, 27 – 43.
Thomas, T. (1996). Global view transforms industry. BRW, 18(46), 5.
Townsend, A., DeMarie, S., & Hendrickson, A. (1996). Are you ready for virtual teams? HR Magazine, 41(9), 122 – 126.
Townsend, A., DeMarie, S., & Hendrickson, A. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of
Management Executive, 12(3), 17 – 29.
Vanderbroeck, P. (1992, Fall). Long-term human resource development in multinational organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 95 – 99.
Vince, R. (1998). Behind and beyond Kolb’s learning cycle. Journal of Management Education, 22(3), 304 – 319.
Vincent, A., & Ross, D. (2001). Personalize training: Determine learning styles, personality types, and multiple intelligences
online. Learning Organization, 8(1), 36 – 43.
Wagner, R., & Sternberg, R. (1986). Tacit knowledge and intelligence in the everyday world. In: R. Sternberg, & R. Wagner
(Eds.), Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world ( pp. 51 – 83). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wechsler, D. (1950). Cognitive, conative and non-intellective intelligence. American Psychologist, 5, 78 – 83.
Weick, K. (1998). The attitude of wisdom: Ambivalence as the optimal compromise. In: S. Srivasta, & D. Cooperider (Eds.),
Organizational wisdom and executive courage ( pp. 40 – 64). San Francisco, CA: The Lexington Press.
Wright, P., & Boswell, W. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource
management research. Journal of Management, 28(3), 247 – 276.
Wright, P., Smart, D., & McMahan, G. (1995). Matches between human resources and strategy among NCAA basketball teams.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1052 – 1107.
Wright, P., & Snell, S. (1998). Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibility in strategic human resource
management. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 756 – 772.
Zadek, S., Hojensgard, N., & Raynard, P. (2001). Perspectives on the new economy of corporate citizenship. Copenhagen: The
Copenhagen Centre.