On the Perceptions of Team Communication and the Role of Video Communication in a real-life Global Virtual Team A Qualitative Study using Thematic Analysis

(1)

02.11.2018

MASTER THESIS

“If everyone was singing from the same hymn sheet…”

On the Perceptions of Team Communication and the Role of Video

Communication in a real-life Global Virtual Team

A Qualitative Study using Thematic Analysis

Nicolas Jean Nicaise

Student Number: S3346943 / B7080751

n.j.nicaise2@newcastle.ac.uk

n.j.nicaise@student.rug.nl

Supervisor Newcastle University Business School: Dr R. Casey

Supervisor University of Groningen: Dr B.J.W. Pennink

MSc. Advanced International Business Management and Marketing

Faculty of Economics and Business (University of Groningen)

Business School (Newcastle University)

(2)

I

Abstract

Globalization and ever-faster technological development have led to an increased pressure on firms to tap into resources and opportunities outside of their domestic market, thus to increasingly make use of global virtual teams (GVTs) and to focus more on internationally executed projects. This new way of working brings with it the challenge of communication in such dispersed settings. Communication has been found to be crucial for team success. Various characteristics of teams have been the focus of extent team communication research, analysing how these characteristics can influence how team members communicate and work together. This study approaches the issue of team communication from an interpretivist perspective, thus not testing a specific influence on team communication, but trying to understand how the communication within a real-life global virtual team is perceived by its individual members. It also answers the literature’s call for clarifying the role of video communication as one of the most modern communication tools within GVTs. The study approaches these open research questions through a single-case research design, namely the real-life project of SIE (System Integration Engineer) executed by Airbus Defence and Space. Structured around sensitizing concepts identified through a comprehensive literature review of team communication, six in-depth interviews with members of the SIE team are conducted. Following Brown and Clarke’s (2006) approach of thematic analysis, five core themes that explicate how communication is perceived in the team, and what role video communication plays, are identified. The findings show that communication technology works, but that organizational structure and accountability issues are perceived as a hindrance to team communication. The members do not feel as one team, nevertheless the relationship is perceived to be good. The diverse team composition is not said to negatively influence the communication, but in fact is perceived as a team work and communication enhancement. Video communication is argued to help the communication in general, albeit not being able to replace personal interaction. This study thus contributes to the field of research on team communication by exploring the individual perceptions of the members of a GVT in a real-life project setting, and by investigating what the role of video communication is perceived to be. These findings are then related back to extent literature. Additionally, the study offers specific recommendations to Airbus on how to improve the SIE team communication generally, and specifically for the use of video communication.

(3)

II

Preface and Acknowledgement

This study is conducted as the Master Thesis in the course of the MSc. Advanced International Business Management and Marketing Program, a business and economics double-degree between the University of Groningen (Netherlands) and the Newcastle University Business School (UK).

The idea for this study emerged from personal experience before my time at the University of Groningen / Newcastle University Business School. I have worked within the Project Management Office of an international project set-up for three years. The project, still running today, is called System Integration Engineer, or SIE, and is considered to be the largest integrated border security project in the world. Its aim is the modernization of the Border Guard of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is executed by Airbus Defence and Space, mainly by a project team dispersed between two locations: The rather engineering focused side in Friedrichshafen, Germany, and the rather project roll-out focused, customer-facing side in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. As I had the privilege to work on both sides (Germany one year, Saudi Arabia two years), I was able to get detailed insight into the project processes, including the communication between the team members, domestically and across both locations. Issues in the communication between the team members, especially between Germany and Saudi Arabia, have been experienced, but never truly investigated. This situation thus provided the basis for a thorough academic exploration of the communication issues at hand, and to clarify the role video communication as a modern communication tool plays in the perceptions of the SIE team members.

I would hereby like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr R. Casey (Newcastle University Business School) and Dr B.J.W. Pennink (University of Groningen) for their guidance and their highly appreciated comments and suggestions. Their reachability, knowledge and continuous support greatly contributed to this study.

(4)

III

List of Figures

Figure 1 - The Airbus SIE Case and Research Questions ... 4

Figure 2 - The Research Process applied ... 15

Figure 3 - Thematic Map of the Individual Perception of Communication ... 18

List of Tables

Table 1 - Six Phase Guide of Thematic Analysis, according to Braun and Clarke (2006) ... 16

Table 2 - Aggregation of Code Categories to Themes ... 18

Table 3 - Exemplary Statements Theme 1: Communication Technology Works ... 21

Table 4 - Exemplary Statements Theme 2: Organizational Structure and Accountability Issues ... 23

Table 5 - Exemplary Statements Theme 3: Us vs. Them vs. Relationship ... 25

Table 6 - Exemplary Statements Theme 4: Diversity as a Team Work and Communication Enabler ... 27

Table 7 - Exemplary Statements Theme 5: Video Communication as Next Best Alternative to meeting F-t-F ... 29

Table 8 - Thematic Analysis Phase 1 and 2 – Extract Interview 2 ... xv

Table 9 - Codes aggregated to Code Categories – Extract Interview 4 ... xvi

Table 10 - Rearranging the code list alphabetically – Extract Interview 4 ... xvii

List of Abbreviations

Airbus DS Airbus Defence and Space

F-t-F Face-to-Face (meeting someone in person) GVT Global Virtual Team(s)

IT Information Technology KSA Kingdom of Saudi Arabia MRT Media Richness Theory

RACI Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed SIE System Integration Engineer (an Airbus DS project)

(7)

1

1 Introduction

“Clear and concise communication is essential to good teamwork” (Kleij et al., 2009, p. 356). Many tragic events such as air crashes or military friendly fire can be traced back to a failure in communication, providing proof of the role communication plays in a team’s success, and thus in our everyday lives (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006). In the business world, communication between the members of a team is of utmost importance if the team is to deliver its targets on time, quality, and budget.

Virtual and dispersed teams, with members placed and operating across various locations, have become an indispensable part of international business operations (Dulebohn and Hoch, 2017). Globalization, its accompanying increased intensity of competition, and the opportunity to tap into a much broader, global pool of talent and knowledge, forces companies to adapt to new ways of working in teams across national borders.

This study has been initiated based on personal experience. For three years, I have been part of an international project team, dispersed over two countries, namely Saudi Arabia and Germany. The project, still running today, is the so called System Integration Engineer (SIE) of the Saudi Arabian Border Guard Development Program. Its aim is to develop and implement the modernization of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia border security. It is executed by Airbus Defence and Space, Europe’s leading defence company and one of the three pillars of the Airbus group. As I had the privilege to work on both sides of the project (one year in Germany and two years in Saudi Arabia), I was able to get a detailed insight into its workings, and more importantly so into its issues. One of the issues within the project that repeatedly caught my attention was the communication between the team members of the German side and the Saudi side. Difficulties in communication, such as unavailability of team members, deadlines not being met without notice, unclear hierarchy and responsibility have been experienced frequently, but have never been thoroughly explored, nor understood.

(8)

2 communication is perceived by the team members, in order to reduce the risks of project stall due to communication break-downs.

Extent literature on (virtual-) team communication, as is shown in section three of this study, has taken various standpoints in examining how team characteristics (such as trust or culture) or team work processes can influence team communication and functioning, with sometimes contradicting arguments and results. Little attention however has been given to trying to understand how team members feel about communication and the reasons and rationales behind these perceptions in a real-life setting. This study stands out from extent research by taking a different approach.

First, instead of trying to identify how one specific, pre-defined team characteristic (e.g. trust, composition, culture, etc.) influences the team’s communication and performance, this study explores the individual perceptions of communication of the team members. These findings are then compared to the current understandings of team communication literature. The aim of this study is to investigate the real-life communication perception of Airbus team members, and whether the findings obtained through conducting and analysing interviews can be related to the theoretical understanding of extent literature on team communication. The study thus takes a broader perspective concerning the factors potentially influencing individual perceptions (not pre-defined characteristics), but a more focused and more personal perspective concerning the individual’s team communication experiences and issues (the individual perception, not e.g. hard performance measurements).

Second, this study focuses on video communication and its potential influence on these individual perceptions of team communication. It thus “answers the literature’s call” for clarifying the role of video communication as a modern communication media in real-life virtual team business settings. Based on ever increasing speed and bandwidth of the internet and a new mind-set of working internationally, video communication today is the technology that arguably serves best the “demands for real-time communication across greater distances” (Bohannon et al., 2013, p. 177), communication that goes beyond using solely written (e-mail) or verbal (phone) media.

(9)

3 in the laboratory are often not the most effective for understanding the fluid and often apparently seamless nature of “real-life” groups, the rich variety of natural organizational work groups, and the spiralling use of new communication channels and technologies, such as videoconferencing” (Greenbaum and Query, 1999, p. 553).

This study thus focuses on answering the following open research question:

How do the Airbus SIE project team members perceive the communication within the team, and what role does video communication play in their perception of team communication? To answer this research question, the study at hand follows an interpretivist research philosophy, applying qualitative research methods. By using a deductive-inductive mixed approach, a single-case research setting, and by conducting semi-structured interviews, this study explores how the Airbus team members perceive the communication within the team, and what role the modern tool of video communication plays in these perceptions. It follows the data analysis approach of Thematic Analysis, as described by Braun and Clarke (2006), which is an “accessible and theoretically flexible approach to analysing qualitative data” (2006, p. 77), but at the same time offers a clear and concise six phase plan for data analysis.

The interviews, as the single data collection method for this study, are based on, and structured around, four overarching topics or sensitizing concepts (Jonker and Pennink, 2010) on virtual team communication, which have been identified through a comprehensive literature review. These sensitizing concepts are Team Identity, Team Composition, Team Processes, and Team Virtuality, and represent an aggregated view of the various team characteristics which, according to extent research, can influence team communication. Further details on the sensitizing concepts and how they have been identified can be found in section four.

(10)

4 to the main understandings of team communication, as well as the role of video communication therein. The goal is to investigate whether the findings can be explained through the team communication and communication media literature reviewed, and how the findings can contribute to the field of research respectively. Lastly the study shall give specific recommendations on how the perceived communication between the team members can be enhanced, and whether changes shall be made to the way video communication is utilized within the project.

2 The Case

The project this study is based on is the so called System Integration Engineer, or SIE, which is considered to be the largest integrated border security project in the world, and is part of the Saudi Arabian Border Guard Development Program. It is designed and implemented by Airbus Defence and Space (Airbus DS), one of the three pillars of the Airbus Group. Airbus DS is Europe’s largest defence company, and “among the top 10 defence companies worldwide” (Airbus, 2018). The SIE project is executed by an internationally dispersed team. The German side of the project, located in Friedrichshafen at the lake Constance, mainly focuses on the engineering and development part of the project. The customer facing side, located in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is responsible for the roll-out and implementation of the project. The following figure depicts the SIE project set-up, including the research question investigated by this study:

Figure 1 - The Airbus SIE Case and Research Questions

(11)

5 perspective” (2014, p. 4). The Airbus case as a single case design for this study has been chosen for two reasons (Yin, 2014). First, the case at hand is critical to the virtual team communication and video communication research and literature identified. Second, it can be classified as a common case, meaning that the findings and interpretations of this case can potentially be related to similar cases outside of the Airbus company as well as the industry specific context. The case at hand can be classified as an embedded case-design, as the team delivering the SIE project is effectively split into two units of analysis, the KSA side (project implementation) and the German side (engineering).

3 Literature Review

3.1 Teams and virtual teams

Teams in an organization are defined as “collectives that are composed of two or more individuals who (a) interact, (b) are interdependent, and (c) share some common goal(s) or objective(s).” (Ilgen, 1999, p. 129). In contrast to co-located teams, virtual teams (VT) can be defined based on three distinct characteristics; the team members are working across geographically distant locations, their work is interconnected and thus interdependent, and the team members make use of communication technology due to the limited face-to-face communication possibility (Gibson and Cohen, 2003; Dulebohn and Hoch, 2017). Although Kirkman and Mathieu (2005) agree that geographical distance between teams is likely to lead to an increased use of communication technology, they also argue that co-located teams (e.g. all team members within the same building) nevertheless can make use of the same communication tools as VTs, and that thus the degree of team virtuality does not solely depend on geographic distance, but on the teams’ communication processes and habits as well. Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) added another layer to the concept of virtual teams by considering the aspect of temporary collaboration as well as the potential cultural diversity of team members, which they therefore termed global virtual teams (GVTs).

3.2 Team communication research

(12)

6 prominent models of communication is the Sender-Receiver-Model by Shannon and Weaver (1964). A message is being transmitted to its destination through a transmitter and a receiver, between which a noise source can alter the actual message. Moving away from the linear one-to-one communication model, and adding the layer of communication between multiple actors, such as communication in real-world business teams, the concept of communication increases in complexity, and thus leverages the potential problem described above.

“Communication has emerged as a key attribute of teamwork, and a team working well together. It is vital to high performance and to achieve team and individual objectives” (Pandey and Karve, 2018, p.24).

Understanding how team performance is influenced by team communication has been the focus of a major share of contemporary team communication literature. Endacott et al. (2017) found “a strong negative relationship between teams’ perceived stress caused by dysfunctional communication and team performance”, while the dysfunctional communication was characterized by lack of members listening and ideas not being expressed clearly, as well as “dominating talk, and/or nonparticipation by some members” (2017, p. 137). Marlow et al. (2018) categorize team communication into frequency and quality of communication, as well as whether the communication between the team members is task oriented, relational, or mixed. Through a meta-analysis of team communication literature, they found that there is a positive relation between communication and performance of teams, and that this relation is moderated by team and communication characteristics. While stronger team familiarity positively moderates the relation between communication and performance, increased team virtuality decreases this relation (compared to face-to-face teams). They also found that communication quality has a stronger impact on performance than communication frequency. In a study on the relation between team educational diversity, innovation climate and team performance, Valls et al. (2016) reached the same conclusion, “that team communication quality, and not frequency and amount, can make it an intervening variable between team diversity and outcomes” (2016, p. 766).

(13)

7 effectively, just as Chang et al. (2014, p. 1330) state that “interpersonal trust is […] key to a successful virtual team”. Alsharo et al. (2017) contrarily argue that trust is not a necessity for team performance, asking for further research to clarify “the impact of trust on virtual teams’ collaboration and effectiveness” (2017, p. 486). In literature, one can thus find contradicting arguments on what influences teams, which is also shown in later sections of this literature review.

A vast body of research has channelled its efforts onto identifying how certain team characteristics and team compositions can have an influence on the way team communication takes place. In an extensive literature review, Tiferes and Bisantz (2018) screened 727 publications that included the words “team communication”, which after several screening, scrutinizing and cross-referencing stages, resulted in 99 articles that related team characteristics to team communication properties (representing the measurements of communication within the studies). 11 overarching team characteristics that can influence team communication have been identified; situational stressors, team familiarity, experience, geographic distribution, communication medium, task type, cognitive artefacts, roles, size, hierarchical structure, and team training. These have been related to three categories of how these studies measured team communication (communication properties); individual message properties, total communication volume and communication content and flow.

All these team characteristics (or the lack of them, e.g. trust) are argued to be able to influence the way team members communicate and, as shown by extent research (Endacott et al., 2017; Marlow et al., 2018 among others), thus impact the team’s performance and outcome. As per the definition of a team, the members are interdependent and have to reach a common goal, which can only be achieved by communicating with each other. Communication is therefore the core of all team work.

3.3 Issues and challenges specific to virtual teams

(14)

8 One general issue in VTs, especially GVTs, are the cultural differences between the team members. The team set up can consist of members from different cultural backgrounds, with different understandings and interpretations of working together (Gibson and Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001), which can hinder the formation of trust between the members (Chang et al., 2014) and can make it difficult “to form and adhere to norms while individuals have been socialized under heterogeneous standards of acceptable behaviour in a given context” (Krumm et al., 2013, p. 40). Zander et al. (2013) have identified that not only the development of trust varies based on different cultural background, but the acceptance of different leadership styles and preferences as well. These differences in leadership style acceptance are also reflected in a Harvard Business Review article by Brett et al. (2006). The article categorizes the challenges multicultural teams face into four issues; Direct vs. indirect communication, Trouble with accents and fluency, Differing attitudes toward hierarchs and authority, and Conflicting norms for decision making.

Another VT and GVT specific challenge is the lack of trust between members compared to co-located teams. According to Scott (2013) little direct contact and missing interpersonal relationships create and increase the potential for team conflicts, which tend to be harder to resolve than in co-located teams due to time lacks in communication. However, team communication literature findings are inconsistent and often contradictory, including the research field of trust in VTs, as shown in the later chapter “Video communication in virtual teams”.

Virtual teams face different challenges compared to co-located teams in terms of effective knowledge and information creation and sharing (Bhat et al. 2017). Griffith et al. (2003) argue that the increased use of communication technology in VTs shows two effects on knowledge sharing and creation: VTs, by having to use communication technology to transfer knowledge, are more likely to convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge to be able to transfer it, which results in a benefit for the company, especially in the case of employees leaving. On the other hand, the very same process hinders the creation of team-specific tacit knowledge, as “members of more virtual teams work in an environment where their relationships are more filtered (by communication technologies)” (2003, p. 272) and “because of the absence of informal meetings […] feel that cross-border knowledge must be used as potential source of competitive advantage” (Bhat et al., 2017, p. 35).

(15)

9 teams’ communication processes (Klitmoller and Lauring, 2013). Klitmoller et al. (2015) found that, at least when using verbal communication media (such as phone), individuals’ differences in language proficiency (accents, fluency, etc.) can “lead to social categorization of individuals” (2015, p. 280), resulting in uncertainty when communicating with other team members. Besides increased uncertainty, Hinds et al. (2014) argue that language differences (or what they termed language asymmetries) can lead to “us vs them subgrouping dynamics” (2014, p. 555) within the team, especially if team internal power contests are existent. These subgrouping dynamics can create “a negative affective state that radiates tensions across locations in the global teams” (2014, p. 559), thus greatly impacting the teams’ functioning.

3.4 The choice of communication media for virtual teams

(16)

10 According to Klitmoller and Lauring (2013), the choice of communication media, richer vs leaner, can also be influenced by the team members’ shared language commonality, which is defined as “the degree to which individuals share common understanding of the English language” (2013, p. 400). They argue that when the language commonality between the team members is low, the use of lean media for communicating equivocal information (instead of rich media, as argued by MRT) might be beneficial, as it allows team members to take their time to read and understand the information, and thus reduces the risk of creating confusion due to language commonality issues.

Extending on the concept of MRT, and proposed MRT adaptations such as by Klitmoller and Lauring (2013), Palvia et al. (2011) argue that not only the equivocality and media richness play a role in the choice of communication methods in teams, but that contextual constraints can influence this decision as well. These constraints are categorized as “1) need for urgency, 2) need for social interaction, 3) need for confidentiality, 4) need for information integrity, and 5) need for accountability” (2011, p. 658). Although missing one of the important communication media in modern VTs – video communication – Palvia et al. (2011) advance the research on media choice by stressing that theories such as MRT cannot sufficiently explain media decision without looking at the context in which they are taken. What technology means to a team, and thus which technology a team decides best serves its needs in a given context, differs greatly as “every virtual team is a unique group comprised of individuals and their relationships” (Laitinen and Valo, 2018, p. 20).

3.5 Video communication in virtual teams

This study explores the use and perception of video communication between members of a GVT, as this technology today (per MRT definition) offers the greatest capacity for immediate feedback and incorporates the greatest number of cues, verbal as well as non-verbal such as body language (Daft and Lengel, 1986). Video communication is thus currently the closest “attempt to move towards the natural state of face-to-face interaction” in GVT settings (Hassell and Cotton, 2017, p. 200).

(17)

11 Credé and Sniezek (2003) found that face-to-face teams and teams using video communication mostly do not differ in decision-making characteristics, such as accuracy, improvement on initial estimates, or individual commitment. However, they do differ significantly in two aspects: face-to-face teams are much more confident in their decisions than teams using video communication, and face-to-face teams “exhibit a greater tendency to improve upon the best individually arrived at solution” (2003, p. 892). One possible explanation Credé and Sniezek provide is that virtual teams tend to show less group ownership, mainly due to the intangible nature of communicating through video.

Examining how communication patterns, satisfaction and performance differ between co-located teams and teams using video communication, Kleij et al. (2009) found that there is no difference in the performance of the teams, but that there are indeed differences in the communication patterns and perceived satisfaction. The teams using video communication were found to follow a more formal communication style (longer turns, less interruption, more polite), and showed “lower levels of perceived satisfaction with group processes and outcomes” (2009, p. 372). One explanation Kleij et al. offer is that, compared to face-to-face teams, “the relative lack of social context cues […] led to the frustration and dissatisfaction of the video-teleconferencing group members” (2009, p. 72). Another important finding is that the initial differences in communication patterns (turn duration and number of turns) diminished over the test sessions, which can be interpreted as virtual teams adapting to their new communication environment. A similar effect was not found for team satisfaction.

(18)

12 These contradicting findings on video communication and its influence on team members’ perceptions support Laitinen and Valo’s (2018) claim that every team is unique and thus the preferences for communication media and their appraisal of it differs, and that communication is highly context specific (Newman, 1960; Palvia et al., 2011).

4 Four Sensitizing Concepts

The literature review on virtual team communication has shown that studies have focused on a broad spectrum of team characteristics and how these can potentially influence a team’s communication and thus the outcome of the team’s work. In order to render the vast field of research on GVT communication to a more approachable state, the areas of interest of research have to be focused and aggregated to more abstract levels. By scrutinizing and comparing the team characteristics, this study summarizes the identified communication influencing factors under four sensitizing concepts or “theoretical notions that guide the way of observing reality” (Jonker and Pennink, 2010, p. 100):

1. Team Identity, including characteristics such as trust between the team members, familiarity, or roles.

2. Team Composition, including team members’ experiences, size of the team, geographical distribution, culture, language, etc.

3. Team Processes, including task vs. relational communication, nature of the team task, training, knowledge creation and sharing, etc.

4. Team Virtuality, including choice and use of communication tools, virtual vs. face-to-face communication, etc.

(19)

13 the discussion” (Jonker and Pennink, 2010, p. 55) for the data gathering method of this study, the semi-structured interviews.

5 Research Method

5.1 Research Paradigm and Methodology

This study addresses the issue of virtual team communication by observing “reality through the eyes of someone else” (Jonker and Pennink, 2010, p. 28), in this case the eyes of the SIE project team members.The study therefore asks an open, explorative research question “leaving ample space for various definitions” (2010, p. 11), and utilizes qualitative research methods to investigate and understand the reasons and rational of how team communication is experienced by the team members. Therefore, a positivist research approach has been rejected, as this study’s goal is to explore individual perceptions of communication. It focuses on “meanings and interpretations”, and follows the “assumption that reality is constructed and cannot be fathomed out or explained with direct reference to universal laws” (Brewerton and Millward, 2001, p. 11), such as a positivist view, or “more commonly, a quantifiable perspective” (Goulding, 2002, p. 16) would suggest.

As described in section two, this study is based on a single research case design with two embedded units of analysis, the German and the Saudi side of the SIE project (Yin, 2014). Yin argues that analysing a case is a valuable research option under three conditions: “(1) the main research questions are “how” or “why” questions; (2) a researcher has little or no control over behavioural events; and (3) the focus of study is a contemporary […] phenomenon” (Yin, 2014, p. 2). The Airbus case at hand satisfies all three requirements. The study (1) asks how communication is perceived by individuals, and explores why that is, (2) I as the researcher have no control over these perceptions, and (3) the case is a real-life real-time phenomena.

5.2 Data collection

(20)

14 interviews follow Cavana et al. (2001, pp. 138-141) suggestion of going through different stages within each interview (Entrance Time Investment, Activity no. 2 / Rapport Zone, and Exit Time Investment) in order to avoid any blocking situations and to guarantee that the interviewees feel comfortable when being asked questions on their perception of communication. A description of how the interviews conducted followed these phases can be found in Appendix 1, together with the complete Interview Guideline for this study.

Six in-depth interviews within the SIE project team were conducted, four on the Saudi side and two with team members from the German side. As face-to-face meetings with the team members on the Saudi side were not possible (logistically and due to visa restrictions), and to guarantee a comparable data collection between the two sides, all interviews were conducted via phone. The interviews’ duration ranged from 23 minutes to 48 minutes.

(21)

15 interviews, analysing and interpreting them, to relating the findings back to the literature is depicted in the following figure:

Figure 2 - The Research Process applied

5.3 Data analysis – Thematic Analysis

The interviews conducted were recorded (audio only) and transcribed subsequently. In order to analyse the data gathered through the team member interviews, this study applies the approach of thematic analysis as described by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke (2006). Thematic analysis is defined as “a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 79), and thus “a way of describing the organization of data into themes” (Gibson and Brown, 2009, p. 153). They emphasize that themes emerging from these patterns are not a natural constituent of the gathered data, but that they are created through the researcher’s analysis and interpretation, thus stressing the “active role the researcher always plays” in this process (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 80). Themes “capture something important about the data in relation to the research question” (2006, p. 82), but this does not necessarily mean that importance is equivalent to the frequency of themes.

1. Literature Review

Virtual team communication and video communication in extent literature.

2. Themes for the interviews Following a deductive approach, four

sensitizing concepts have been identified from literature:

1. Team Identity 2. Team Composition

3. Team Process 4. Team Virtuality

3. Interview Questions Asking open, exploratory questions structured around the four sensitizing concepts, on how

team members perceive the communication within the team,

why this perception exists, and what the role of video

communication is. 4. Thematic Analysis

Following a thematic analysis approach, categories and themes are identified based on interview answers, thus no pre-defined categories on how and why team members perceive communication and the role of

video communication. 5. From Data to Theory Interpreting the interview findings. Relating them to the findings of extent research. Can the fndings contribute to the literature

(22)

16 This study follows the six-phase guide of thematic analysis proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006):

Table 1 - Six Phase Guide of Thematic Analysis, according to Braun and Clarke (2006)

In the first phase, termed familiarization, the interview data is transcribed from audio recordings into text data. Gibson and Brown (2009) argue that there are three types of transcriptions; indexical, unfocused, and focused. Indexical transcription refers to generating an “overview of the contents of a recording” (2009, p. 125). As this study’s aim is to investigate all possible perceptions the interviewees might have about team communication, indexical transcription is rejected and instead, a mix between unfocused and focused transcription, thus transcribing the entire interview paired with highlighting emphasized words and sentences is applied. The transcription of the audio data follows suggestions by Saunders and Lewis (2012, p. 189) and Saldana (2015, p. 18 ff.) in terms of form and structure, e.g. loudly spoken or emphasized words are shown in bold font, which is in line with the approach of focused transcriptions. The interview transcriptions are split into sections according to discussion topics, which helps in organizing the extensive transcriptions and thus facilitates the allocation and later retrieval of codes and their related datum. Additionally to the raw transcription of the interviews, this first phase includes the exercise of writing down initial thoughts and ideas. An example of the first step of familiarization with the data (including the second step of creating codes), can be found in Appendix 4 as an extract from interview number two.

(23)

17 refers back to the argument that themes emerging from data are not naturally pre-existing, but the result of the researcher’s active involvement in the analytical process. “Coding is analysis” (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 56), as it “is linking rather than merely labelling” (Richards and Morse, 2007, p. 137). The goal of this phase is to create codes that allow for linking ideas to the gathered data, which forms the basis for categorizing those ideas into higher levels in the third phase. This study follows an inductive coding approach, thus not coding according to pre-defined categories, but trying to identify any aspect of team communication perception of the interviewees (Wilson, 2014). The majority of codes are of a descriptive nature, “entail[ing] little interpretation” (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 57), while some, given the nature of the research question at hand, are value codes, capturing the interviewees’ individual perceptions (Saldana, 2015). In vivo coding was used for particularly strong, “significant or summative” answers, or those using a proverb to explain the point stressed (Saldana, 2011, p. 99). Manual coding was pursued given the total amount of interviews conducted. Due to the extent of the interviews conducted, codes were not allocated line-by-line, but based on striking words or phrases in the answers given. An example of the second phase (including the first phase of noting down initial ideas) can be found in Appendix 4, an extract from interview number two.

(24)

18

Table 2 - Aggregation of Code Categories to Themes

An example and explication of the process of how codes have been aggregated to code categories, and these categories to themes respectively, can be found in Appendix 5, based on extracts from interview number four.

The fourth phase of reviewing the initial themes is split into two levels. The first level review is about reviewing the coded data and to verify whether the pieces of transcripts clustered under one theme relate to each other. The second level of review has the goal to verify whether the themes can be related to the overall “meaning evident in the data set [the interview] as a whole” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 91). The outcome of this phase is to create a so called thematic map, a graphic representation of the themes, including the code categories that make up these themes. The following thematic map was created based on the results of the third phase, and through a “recursive process” of moving between the interview transcripts, the allocated codes and the code categories (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 86).

(25)

19 Defining and naming the themes, the fifth phase, can be considered as the final step for the analysis and interpretation of the data. For each theme, a clear and concise narrative is created. This phase is presented in the next section, section six – Findings.

The sixth phase is about answering the research question at hand, and creating the research report. Section eight – Theory Development – interprets the findings in relation to the research question and presents a “concise coherent, logical, non-repetitive and interesting account of the story the data tell – within and across themes” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 93). It analyses how the findings of this study can be related to the extent research identified in the literature review, and provides specific, practical recommendations on how the perception of communication within the Airbus SIE project can be enhanced.

5.4 Validity, Reliability and Ethics

As discussed previously, the researcher plays an active role not only in the process of analysing the data, but as well in the gathering of the data, and in fact the entire research process (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Although qualitative research is often exposed to criticism when referring to validity and reliability, I side with the arguments made by Richards and Morse (2007) that these concepts very well do apply to this research paradigm. Reliability of this study is made sure not by guaranteeing that the results can be reproduced precisely, but by guaranteeing that the process of how the findings and conclusions have been reached is thoroughly depicted and explained in great detail, so that the entire research process is transparent, fully understood, e.g. through “communicating intermediate results” (Jonker and Pennink, 2010, p. 104), and replicable for future research. The transparent way in which the data has been gathered, transcribed in its entirety combined with the focus on emphasized words (Gibson and Brown, 2009), and the step-by-step explicated analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006), proofs the validity of the results related to actual content of the answers provided by the interviewees.

(26)

20 enough time to ask for clarification. To ensure the answers are not influenced into a certain direction by the researcher, it was stressed at the beginning of each interview that there are no right or wrong answers to the questions, and that interviewees should speak as freely as they wish about their perceptions and opinions.

6 Findings

The following empirical findings represent the result generated through the thematic analysis process described above, and depicted by the thematic map. Five core themes on how the communication within the SIE team is perceived have been identified. Each of the following theme narratives is introduced by exemplary statements made by interviewees, including the related code category. Additionally, at the end of each theme narrative, the core message is summarized “in short”.

6.1 Theme 1: Communication Technology works

Interv. Code Category Exemplary statement

1 Communication

Technology

I1.4 „Well concerning communication, you also have to differentiate, from the technical side communication works fine“1

2 Communication

Technology I2.2 “Communication based on the media that we use to communicate, or the individual that is expected to communicate” I2.2 “Okay, yes, so for the media, i.e. WebEx and conference calling, yes I am more than happy with that”

3 Communication

Technology

I3.2 “The technology works reasonably well”

4 Communication

Technology I4.10 “If the network is down of course, that is the downside, you have no way to connect to the people”

5 Communication

Technology I5.3 “But generally, for the people in the office, completely problem-free”

2

6 Communication

Technology I6.9 “I don’t think I would have a problem there. I have my direct communication lines“3

1 Communication

Tools

I1.2 “The most frequent way that communication happens is via e-mail“4

2 Communication

Tools I2.1 “Once or twice a month right now, and that’s normally via WebEx, just to show issues that we can all … show it from either end”

3 Communication

Tools I3.7 “Otherwise, we will participate in scheduled meetings, typically WebEx, or we set up telephone calls, or video conferences on the occasion when we need them”

I3.8 “I think it is highly unlikely, unless it was truly critically urgent, to give them a cold call so to speak”

5 Communication

Tools I5.1 “Exactly, well in … more than 90% teleconferences with WebEx”

5

1_{“Also man muss ja bei der Kommunikation auch unterscheiden, von der technischen Seite her klappt die}

Kommunikation” (I1.4)

2_{“Aber grundsätzlich, für Leute die im Büro sind, völlig problemlos” (I5.3)}

3_{“Da hätte ich, glaube ich, keine Probleme. Ich habe die direkten Kommunikationskanäle” (I6.9)} 4_{“Die Art und Weise wie kommuniziert wird ist am häufigsten per E-Mail” (I1.2)}

(27)

21

Table 3 - Exemplary Statements Theme 1: Communication Technology Works

Most interviewees recognize that what is broadly termed communication can be seen as twofold: The communication technology used and the communication content and achievements related to the individual communication partner. The interview findings show that the communication technology used within the project works. There are no systemic functionality issues with the communication technologies discussed. Next to e-mail as the most used communication media, WebEx is mentioned as a frequently used tool: “Exactly, well in … more than 90% teleconferences with WebEx” (I5.1). WebEx is a communication software by CISCO, which allows for phone conferences while simultaneous sharing the desktop screen with all participants. WebEx also offers the possibility of video conferencing, but the interview findings indicate that it is mostly used to share desktop screens. One participant stated that e-mails are often used as a pre-warning, so not to give a colleague a “cold call” (I3.8) with a topic to be discussed. Video conferencing is said to be used the least frequent and usually for “more structured meetings” (I3.9). The range of how satisfied the team members are with the communication technology ranges from “technology works reasonably well” (I3.2) to “more than happy” (I2.2). One interviewee even went as far as saying that the communication technology per se does not matter, stating that „You can communicate well with each other using a Djembe (West-African drum), if willingness exists, and you can communicate badly using holographic technology, if no willingness exists. Technical prerequisites are overrated, its willingness that counts” (I1.216_{). Given the fact that the same interviewee stated that the}

communication technically works well, one can argue that the communication technology works well to a point that the employees take it for granted. Nevertheless, interviewees also stated that in cases the technology does not work, e.g. due to network issues, the impact thereof is significant: “If the network is down of course, that is the downside, you have no way to connect to the people” (I4.10).

In short: According to the interview findings, communication has to be seen from two perspectives, technical and content/achievement related to the individual communication partners. The most frequently used communication tool is e-mail followed by WebEx. The technical part is perceived to work sufficiently well, with only minor network reliability issues. The team communication is thus not negatively affected by the technological aspect of

6_{„Man kann auch mit einer Buschtrommel gut miteinander kommunizieren, wenn eine Willingness da ist, und}

(28)

22 communicating, except for when technological communication is not available due to network issues.

6.2 Theme 2: Organizational Structure and Accountability Issues

1 Accountability I1.12 “What is really missing there is end-to-end responsibility”7

2 Accountability I2.5 “But at the end of the day, I am the one that is expected to be accountable for it, to clean it up and to answer for it”

3 Accountability I3.6 “Well it’s sometimes not clear, who is responsible for certain things anymore”

I3.6 “There is a look around the room to see who may pick up that action”

4 Accountability I4.3 “At the end of the day, there is no ultimate one person that is responsible to manage it”

5 Accountability I5.8 “That is the big problem when you have such dispersed organizations such as SIE, to clearly define the responsibilities“8

6 Accountability I6.3 “And then everybody is surprised that it [commitments to the customer] does not work, or that it is not possible”9

1 Goals I1.3 “Well I cannot overemphasize how important it is to allocate goals

to the individual employee, and to communicate it“10

I1.10 “But there at Actacor, it is not clear what the goals are“11

2 Goals I2.6 “If everyone was singing from the same hymn sheet, had the same

responsibilities, then it should be alright”

3 Goals I3.3 “But it is just sometime that the differences in … I guess

engineering versus *other department* can be a little difficult”

4 Goals I4.3 “It is like whenever there is a need, someone takes a part of it,

another takes another part, and then it is like okay now it is spread around”

1 Matrix Organization I1.5 “Keyword matrix organization, well the matrix organization is very engineering-focused and less project-focused”12

2 Matrix Organization I2.5 “For me, every configuration manager that is putting stuff in the SIE PSP element in SAP should be under the SIE CM umbrella, irrelevant of which country they are staying”

3 Matrix Organization I3.2 “More broadly, it has pretty much been recognized that the lines of communication have been an issue”

I3.4 “When you have two managers, it always makes communication a little difficult”

4 Matrix Organization I4.3 “There are so many re-organizations, people come and go, it is really fast changes in the organization”

I4.7 “With a matrix organization you always have that solid and tat dotted line. And it is “I have my community, and I give my resources to you on a loan or a lease basis. Temporarily, on your organization. And when I need him, I pull him back”

I4.7 “That adds complexity to the way things are communicated” 5 Matrix Organization I5.8 “A continuous source of joy. And there is a lot of sarcasm in that

statement”13

7_{“Was da wirklich fehlt ist end-to-end responsibility” (I1.12)}

8_{“Das ist das große Problem wenn du solche verteilten Organisationen wie SIE hast, die Zuständigkeiten klar}

abzugrenzen” (I5.8)

9_{“Und dann alle baff sind, dass es [commitments to the customer] nicht funktioniert, oder nicht drin ist” (I6.3)} 10_{“Also ich kann nicht genügend überbetonen wie wichtig das ist, dass man Ziele runterbricht auf die einzelnen}

Mitarbeiter, und dass man diese kommuniziert” (I1.3)

11_{“Aber da bei Actacor ist es unklar was die Ziele sind“ (I1.10)}

(29)

23

6 Matrix Organization I6.7 “[The set-up is] unfavorable. Especially how it has been lived in the past”14

Table 4 - Exemplary Statements Theme 2: Organizational Structure and Accountability Issues

One of the most frequently discussed, and most extensively elaborated themes that emerged from the interviews is that of communication issues based on structural, organizational, accountability and responsibility issues. As shown previously, most interviewees stressed the point that communication has to be looked at from two angles, the technological part and the content part. While it has been shown that the technological part is not perceived to be a cause of communication problems, the content of what is communicated is. This problem can mainly be summarized by three identified code categories: Accountability, Goals, and Matrix Organization. Accountability and responsibility issues within the project are mostly stated in relation to lack of clarity of who is responsible for certain tasks, which complicates the communication among the team members, leading to potential frustration: „That is the big problem when you have such dispersed organizations such as SIE, to clearly define the responsibilities“ (I5.8), and “But at the end of the day, I am the one that is expected to be accountable for it, to clean it up and to answer for it!” (I2.5). In direct relation to the lack of accountability clarity is the uncertainty of who pursues which goals, and thus who is accountable and/or responsible for which action. Goal alignment, or rather the lack of it, adds to the communication confusion between Germany and KSA: “What they propose there is completely contrary to what we want from them” (I1.1415_{). But where do these perceptions of}

missing accountability and differing goals come from?

The interview findings suggest that the core cause for these complications roots in the Matrix Organization the SIE project is woven into. A matrix organization is “defined as a vertical functional hierarchy overlain by lateral authority, influence or communication, i.e. a mixed organization” (Rowlinson, 2001, p. 670). For the team members of the SIE project, this implies that some of them have two managers, a functional manager to whom they report for operational topics, and a line or organizational manager, who has the authority over the headcount. This results in so called dotted and direct reporting lines, which has sarcastically been referred to as ”a continuous source of joy“ (I5.8) and has been rated as “unfavourable” (I6.7). Such a complex organisational structure can create tensions between the departments and lead to the perception that team members are hiding behind these structures. “Where is the motivational factor if people know they will never lose their job for not performing?” (I2.9). This interviewee statement summarizes the potential frustration that results from splitting operational

(30)

24 responsibility from organizational accountability, meaning the actual employee’s work on a project from the direct reporting line to the employee’s manager outside the project. The influence of this highly complex organizational structure and the resulting unclear accountability, responsibility and goal definition and alignment, has a direct impact on the communication between the team members. “Missing end-to-end responsibility” (I1.12) leads to less active communication and team members not really expecting progress through communication anymore: “You already know what your answer is going to be” (I2.3), which refers to people not committing to deadlines, not because they do not want to, but because the organizational structure is not clearly allocating the authorities to do so. “Like everything, it [the matrix organization] becomes tired” (I2.8), including the communication between the members.

In short: The matrix organization that team members of the SIE project are a part of creates unclear accountability and responsibility allocation, as well as unaligned or even differing goals. This in turn leads to less active communication, given the fact that team members cannot commit to e.g. deadlines or deliverables. The perceived lack of progressive communication leads to frustration among the team members, and thus negatively influences the overall perceptions of the communication within the SIE project.

6.3 Theme 3: Us vs. Them vs. Relationship

1 One Team I1.6 “This “we are one team” is definitely not existing”16

I1.7 “They are cooking their own soup”17

2 One Team I2.6 “Instead of being pro-active, they are always reactive“

I2.9 “Yes, because they are not SIE! They don’t answer to us. They answer to everyone there”

4 One Team I4.5 “What we are trying to avoid is having a silo mentality” “It is kind of a struggle”

I4.5 “But with respect to relationship, we try to build ourselves around just having one community”

5 One Team I5.5 “A relatively large percentage [of members] by which the SIE project would not be mentioned at all in their answer, or only upon request”18

6 One Team I6.5 “With this fantasy that we develop generic products here, and that Saudi is only one customer“19

1 Team Who? I1.7 “It is the people here, my direct reporting lines”20

3 Team Who? I3.3 “I cannot always put a face to a name, and I am sure they would say the same thing“

2 Relationship to

other side I2.4 “Every time I needed something, support, they have always given it” I2.4 “I know that I can knock on the door of the German team to support me”

16_{“Dieses “We are one Team” ist auf jeden Fall nicht da“ (I1.6)} 17_{„Die kochen ihr eigenes Süppchen“ (I1.7)}

18_{“Ein relativ großer Prozentsatz bei denen das Projekt SIE gar nicht, oder erst auf Nachfrage vorkommt in der}

Antwort” (I5.5)

(31)

25

3 Relationship to

other side

I3.3 “Otherwise I think the relationship is very good. Both me and my team communicate with that team regularly”

4 Relationship to

other side I4.4 “We have a very good working relationship, and I guess … there is a very friendly environment with those people”

5 Relationship to

other side I5.4 “On a school grade scale I would say a B“

21

6 Relationship to

other side

I6.4 “I think I have a quite good relationship to most of them“22

1 Information is

Power I1.8 “Everyone covers his back, myself included. I would say the opposite of covering one’s back would be to show transparency […] and by doing that you are assailable”23

4 Information is

Power I4.2 “Sometimes certain information are getting to the wrong people”

Table 5 - Exemplary Statements Theme 3: Us vs. Them vs. Relationship

Having investigated the communication issues caused by lack of accountability, differing goals, and the matrix organization, the subsequent question to ask is: Do the project members feel as one team? The answer clearly is No. Statements relating back to the matrix organization such as “Yes, because they are not SIE! They don’t answer to us. They answer to everyone there.” (I2.9) show that there is a strong Us vs. Them feeling. Although it has been stated that team members “are trying to avoid […] a silo mentality” (I4.5), when asked about how well this works, the answer is “it is kind of a struggle” because “that is how the organizational structure has been set up” (I4.5). This is supported by the statement that some colleagues live in “this fantasy that we develop generic products here [in Germany], and that Saudi is only one customer” (I6.5), which shows that silo thinking is very well still a problem.The issues goes as far as team members deliberately holding back information, or giving vague information: “We decide to keep the information sharing to a minimum” (I4.3). This is done out of fear that the information might be shared with the wrong person, in the sense that either the team member might not be authorized to share the information in the first place, or the receiving person might not be authorized to receive the information: “Sometimes certain information are getting to the wrong people” (I4.2).

But does this mean the relationship between the members of the SIE project is bad? No, not at all. In fact, the opposite is the case: “On a school grade scale I would say a B“ (I5.4). While one respondent mentioned resentment between team members and unwillingness to communicate, the general tenor of the interviews is that the interpersonal relationship is “really good, having a nice laugh, you know what I mean?” (I2.4). The relationship is found to be positive, as people are indeed trying to communicate and create the feeling of being one team: “But with respect

21_{„Auf einer Schulnoten-Skala würde ich sagen Gut“ (I5.4)}

22_{“Ich glaube ich habe zu den Meisten ein recht gutes Verhältnis” (I6.4)}

23_{“Jeder sichert sich ab, ich miteinbegriffen. Ich sage mal so, das Gegenteil von sich absichern wäre natürlich}

(32)

26 to relationship, we try to build ourselves around just having one community” (I4.5). The interpersonal environment has been described as friendly and supportive, with people being able to talk to each other (I6.4). Nevertheless, the organizational structure discussed earlier is perceived to act as an obstacle to this effort and willingness to create the feeling of one team: “I think the willingness is always there. I think the whole concept [the organizational structure], as of late, has become a bit more stagnant, with the fact that you already know what your answer is going to be” (I2.3).

In short: Although there is no feeling of being one team across the SIE project, the relationship between the SIE members is good. The team members are willing to communicate and to work on building the feeling of belonging to one team, but the aforementioned organizational structure and its accompanying issues of accountability and goal clarity act as an obstacle to these efforts: “So there is no difficulty in getting information, it is just that the content of the information that is sometimes not clear enough” (I4.4).

6.4 Theme 4: Diversity as a Team Work and Communication Enabler

Interv. Code

Category Exemplary statement

1 Individuality I1.11 “And no two people are the same, we have very very different characters”24

2 Individuality I2.7 “I wouldn’t say it is a gender thing, I think it is just a personality thing“ 6 Individuality I6.6 “It does not make it easier, but with good will everybody can get along with

anybody, no matter the background“25

1 Team

composition I1.11 “Very different, very diversified”

26

I1.11 “Let’s put it this way, the degree of diversity or difference of the individuals within a team is independent of the quality of the communication”27

I1.11 “Everybody can take plane, everybody can operate a video conference tool, everybody can write an e-mail”28

3 Team

composition I3.5 “Very diverse … And I think that is very healthy and I am very encouraged by that. It seems to work very well” I3.5 “ Because people recognize it is important to be professional, important to be helpful to each other, I think it works really well”

4 Team

composition I4.6 “We have different cultures, different nationalities, different customs … and we all work well. There is a harmonious relationship, although we have a diverse community of people”

I4.6 “It [diversity] is helpful”, “I guess it is also an eye opener in fact. So it helps a lot”

5 Team

composition

I5.6 “This [the diversity] is also partially what makes these large-scale projects so appealing“29

24_{“Und keine zwei Menschen sind gleich, wir haben sehr sehr unterschiedliche Charaktere” (I1.11)} 25_{“Es macht es nicht einfacher, aber mit gutem Willen kann man mit jedem klarkommen, egal wie der}

Hintergrund ist” (I6.6)

26_{“Sehr unterschiedlich, sehr diversifiziert” (I1.11)}

27_{„Ich sage mal so, der Grad der Diversität oder der Unterschiedlichkeit der Individuen innerhalb eines Teams}

ist unabhängig von der Qualität der Kommunikation“ (I1.11)

28_{“Jeder kann sich in ein Flugzeug setzen, jeder kann eine Video Konferenzanlage bedienen, jeder kann eine}

E-Mail schreiben“ (I1.11)

(33)

27

6 Team

composition

I6.6 „If both sides pull themselves together a bit, then it is indeed helpful to be different“30

Table 6 - Exemplary Statements Theme 4: Diversity as a Team Work and Communication Enabler

As described in the literature review of this study, understanding the relationship between team members, and thus how team members communicate, has often been related to the composition of the team. The one underlying research question of these studies is how a certain individual characteristic (or multiple characteristics) of team members, such as culture, nationality, gender, professional backgrounds etc., influences the way teams communicate and function. The interviewees in this study have thus been asked to picture all project members that they have direct contact to as one group, and to rate this group in terms of homogeneity or heterogeneity of its members. The findings show that all interviewees defined their group as very heterogeneous, thus very diverse in terms of i.e. culture and nationality (Saudi, German, British, French, Philippine, and more), gender, experience and professional backgrounds (engineers, business people, lawyers, etc.) and age (from mid-twenties to close to retirement). They also recognized that every person is different, not only due to his or her background and gender, but also concerning personal individuality.

Again, the question this study tries to answer is how this influences the team members’ perception of communication and how the team functions. Surprisingly enough, the answer is “not much”, and if anything, it might even add to the members’ positive perceptions of communication and functioning of the team: “It [diversity] is helpful”, “I guess it is also an eye opener in fact. So it helps a lot” (I4.6). One interviewee mentioned that in the past, there have apparently been cross-cultural issues, but that they managed to overcome that “because people recognize it is important to be professional, important to be helpful to each other, I think it works really well” (I3.5). Although it has been mentioned that nationality differences always come with certain peculiarities (non-judgemental), it has also been stressed that the key to communication is willingness, and “if both sides pull themselves together a bit, then it is indeed helpful to be different” (I6.6). Another interviewee similarly argued that irrespectively of culture, age, and gender, “everybody can take a plane, everybody can operate a video conference tool, everybody can write an e-mail” (I1.11). Team diversity, on the one hand, is perceived as something that enhances the team members to be more open and more sensitive to personal differences, and on the other hand is perceived as something that does not in any way hinder individuals to contribute to the team as much as everyone else. Diversity “is also partially what makes these large-scale projects so appealing” (I5.6).

30_{“Wenn sich beide Seiten ein wenig zusammenreißen, dann ist das durchaus hilfreich, wenn man}

On the Perceptions of Team Communication and the Role of Video Communication in a real-life Global Virtual Team A Qualitative Study using Thematic Analysis

02.11.2018

MASTER THESIS

“If everyone was singing from the same hymn sheet…”

On the Perceptions of Team Communication and the Role of Video

Communication in a real-life Global Virtual Team

A Qualitative Study using Thematic Analysis

Nicolas Jean Nicaise

Student Number: S3346943 / B7080751

n.j.nicaise2@newcastle.ac.uk

n.j.nicaise@student.rug.nl

Supervisor Newcastle University Business School: Dr R. Casey

Supervisor University of Groningen: Dr B.J.W. Pennink

MSc. Advanced International Business Management and Marketing

Faculty of Economics and Business (University of Groningen)

Business School (Newcastle University)

Abstract

Preface and Acknowledgement

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

List of Abbreviations

1 Introduction

2 The Case

3 Literature Review

4 Four Sensitizing Concepts

5 Research Method

6 Findings