Abstract
Tensions are a major source of communication problems, coordination issues, and conflict in globally distributed work. In this article, we argue that extant literature falls short of addressing tensions in globally distributed work at two levels. First, it fails to fully account for the intrinsic and entrenched nature of tensions in globally distributed work, suggesting instead that they can be resolved or made to disappear. Second, it does not examine the key interactions among different kinds of tensions. Drawing on qualitative data from a distributed finance organization and applying concepts from paradox theory, we show how globally distributed units negotiate knowledge, power, and identity tensions in collaborative work. The findings illuminate how a sequential enactment of both formal and informal solutions can better address tensions and generate collaborative opportunities in globally distributed work. Building on the findings, we develop a phasal model of tension evolution and management in globally distributed work which explains how tensions evolve from a phase of suppression through to a phase of attenuation. We demonstrate the interactions of knowledge–power–identity tensions against a background of defensive, interactive, and collaborative behaviors, and suggest several practical implications for globally distributed work practice.
Highlights
Organizations rely on globally distributed work (GDW) to take advantage of complementary objectives
Our research focuses on the paradox emerging from the migration of financial tasks from several onshore country level business units (BUs) within the firm’s largest business division to an offshore shared service unit (SSU)
We have drawn on paradox theory in considering the intrinsic and entrenched nature of knowledge, power and identity tensions in GDW
Summary
Organizations rely on globally distributed work (GDW) to take advantage of complementary objectives. Each side can operate within the scope of their own tasks, priorities and values. When they are required to collaborate on distributed processes, tensions stemming from inherent contradictions in the working relationship cause strain and discomfort to both sides (Barney et al, 2014). 2008; Ravishankar et al, 2013); and identity threats (Petriglieri 2011; Koppman et al, 2016)1 These tensions can create communication problems (Levina and Vaast 2008; Hinds et al 2014), coordination issues (Oshri et al, 2008; Kotlarsky et al, 2014) and diminished opportunities for learning and innovation (Levina and Vaast, 2008; Tzabbar and Vestal, 2015). Tensions have been found to reduce willingness to collaborate (Zimmerman and Ravishankar, 2014) and induce value-destroying conflict (Hinds and Mortensen, 2005; Ravishankar, 2015)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
