Organizational identificationamong global virtual team

membersThe role of individualism-collectivism and

uncertainty avoidance

Debmalya Mukherjee and Susan C. HanlonDepartment of Management, The University of Akron, Akron, Ohio, USA

Ben L. KediaRobert Wang Center for International Business Education and Research,

The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA, and

Prashant SrivastavaDepartment of Marketing, The University of Akron, Akron, Ohio, USA

Abstract

Purpose – “Organizational identification” refers to a perception of “oneness” with an organization.The purpose of this paper is to provide a model of organizational identification for virtual teamworkers and examine the role of cultural dimensions in a virtual setting. Specifically, it posesindividualism-collectivism and uncertainty avoidance as potential situational contingencies that mayaffect the determinants of an organizational identification relationship in a virtual work setting.

Design/methodology/approach – The proposed research framework delineates how culturaldimensions relate to virtual work-associated individual (interpersonal trust, need for affiliation) andenvironmental (spatial and cultural dispersion, ICT-enabled communication) factors andorganizational identification. Several testable propositions emerge.

Findings – This study provides a foundation for empirical studies that examine the linkages amongorganizational identification, virtual work, and environment-related factors and cultural variables.

Practical implications – This study has particular implications for managing virtual teams, as wellas specific suggestions for a typology of virtual team members. The typology supports a considerationof expected levels of organizational identification, depending on virtual team member types.

Originality/value – Scholars have devoted very little attention to exploring what factors drive orimpede organizational identification in cross-cultural virtual teams. This paper attempts to fill thatvoid by linking the immediate determinants and the contingency role of cultural variables ororganizational identification in the context of virtual work.

Keywords Virtual work, Team working, Organizations, Employees behaviour, Identification

Paper type Conceptual paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7606.htm

An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the Academy of International Businessannual meeting (2007), Indianapolis, USA. The authors sincerely thank Editors, Dr Simon Dolan andDr Bella Galperin and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments and guidance on thismanuscript.

CCM19,4

526

Received 4 August 2011Revised 31 January 2012Accepted 8 March 2012

Cross Cultural ManagementVol. 19 No. 4, 2012pp. 526-545q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1352-7606DOI 10.1108/13527601211270002

1. IntroductionOrganizations increasingly coordinate activities that span geographical, cultural, andorganizational boundaries (Mukherjee et al., 2012; Sarker et al., 2011). The proliferation ofinternational alliances and offshoring endeavors of companies involve knowledge workerswho often work in intra-organizational as well as inter-organizational teams (Algesheimeret al., 2011; Hertel et al., 2005). As a consequence, organizations are progressively usingvirtual teams (VTs), supported by enabling information and communication technologies(ICT) that are able to surmount the challenges of this interconnected global economy(Gressgard, 2011; Purvanova and Bono, 2009). VTs are used for a wide variety of areas,ranging from high valued-added R&D to more routine customer service (Wakefield et al.,2008). Multinational companies such as Microsoft, Cisco Systems, IBM, and Intel, utilizeVTs for the purpose of catering to global customers while exploiting internationalbusiness opportunities that exist around the world (Badrinarayan et al., 2011).

In a global VT, members are geographically, culturally, and temporally dispersed,interconnected only through advanced communication technologies (Berry, 2011;Purvanova and Bono, 2009). The virtual environment is fraught with many uniquechallenges. For example, such workers, separated physically from coworkers, supervisors,and other organization members, often feel isolated (Rapp et al., 2010; Raghuram et al., 2001;Sivunen, 2006). These individuals also face greater challenges in terms of coordinatingtasks across time zones, physical boundaries, cultural or language barriers, andorganizational contexts (Badrinarayan et al., 2011; Schweitzer and Duxbury, 2010).

Scholars argue that organizational identification may act as a vital binding factor inthe virtual context (Raghuram, 2011; Sivunen, 2006; Wiesenfeld et al., 2001). It helpsto maintain the psychological link between global VT workers and their respectiveorganizations. Organizational identification may also facilitate the coordinationmechanism in VTs by promoting convergent expectations between the members and theorganizations (Brewer and Kramer, 1986; Pratt et al., 2000; Wiesenfeld et al., 2001).In simple words, identification motivates members to coordinate their efforts to achieveorganizationally valued goals and outcomes, such as interpersonal trust and cooperation(Brewer and Kramer, 1986; Martins et al., 2004; Raghuram, 2011). Research furthersuggests that members who identify strongly with their organization are more likely to:

. accept organizational goals as their own personal goals;

. attend to superordinate goals; and

. be loyal and obedient (Dutton et al., 1994; Raghuram, 2011).

Thus, through its impact on employees’ motivations, organizational identification mayact as an informal control mechanism without the need for expensive bureaucraticsystems of direct supervision or monitoring.

Existing literature on global VTs also underscores the importance of the culturalorientations of virtual workers (for a review, see Martins et al., 2004). However, scantresearch attention has centered on the influence of culture and its relationship with theorganizational identification of virtual workers. This gap seems surprising, consideringthat global VT workers often transcend national and cultural boundaries (Chevrier,2003). Globalization and rapid improvements in ICT have resulted in a closely integratedglobal labor and capital market giving business organizations greater access to humancapital that is scattered around the globe (Kedia and Mukherjee, 2009). Globallydispersed VT members thus engage increasingly in intercultural interactions and

Organizationalidentification

527

communications through ICT (Thomas and Bostrom, 2010). We address this voidin the literature. In this article we delineate how two key cultural dimensions,individualism-collectivism and uncertainty avoidance, from Hofstede’s (1980, 1991,1994) seminal work affect virtual work-related individual factors (interpersonal trustand need for affiliation) and environmental factors (spatial-cultural dispersion andICT-enabled communication) and their connection to organizational identification.We choose virtual work-related individual factors and virtual environment factorsbased on prior research findings (Raghuram et al., 2001; Wiesenfeld et al., 1999, 2001)in this field. These factors have been identified as potential antecedents by scholars(Raghuram, 2011; Raghuram et al., 2001; Wiesenfeld et al., 1999, 2001). We alsoincorporate Hofstede’s cultural dimensions for the purpose of parsimony and focus.

From a research perspective, we seek to make three main contributions. First, thisresearch weaves together diverse streams of literature pertaining to VTs and culture.Second, we add to a growing body of VT literature, as well as organizationalidentification research, by identifying interpersonal trust as an antecedent oforganizational identification in a virtual setting. Third, we discern the extent to whichindividualism-collectivism and uncertainty avoidance moderate organizationalidentification in a virtual work setting. In doing so, we also offer a typology of VTmembers based on their cultural orientations.

In the next section, we present a brief overview of both VT and organizationalidentification literature. On the basis of this existing literature, we identify antecedentsof organizational identification in a virtual setting, then examine its link with twocultural dimensions, namely, individualism-collectivism and uncertainty avoidance.We develop a framework, which we show in Figure 1, and propose testablepropositions for research before concluding with a discussion of the managerialimplications and central contributions.

2. VTs and virtual workersGlobal VTs are ubiquitous in the current knowledge-based economy. Apart from thestrategic drivers, socio-economic factors such as the global economic downturn(decreasing travel budgets) and growing terrorist activities (discouraging more frequent

Figure 1.A model of organizationalidentification for virtualworkers with culturaldimensions as moderators

Virtual Work–RelatedIndividual Level Factors

• Interpersonal Trust• Need for Affiliation

OrganizationalIdentification ofGlobal VirtualTeam Members

Uncertainty Avoidance

Virtual Work-RelatedEnvironmental Factors

• Dispersion• ICT-based Communication Richness & Frequency

Individualism–Collectivism

CCM19,4

528

global travels of corporate staff) may also encourage companies worldwide to adoptvirtual work arrangements. Nevertheless, virtual work has become a crucial feature oftoday’s workplace. Researchers have used a wide range of terms to describe virtualwork, distributed work, or VTs (Altschuller et al., 2010; Hertel et al., 2005; Martins et al.,2004). For the purpose of this article, we use “virtual work” in a broad sense to refer towork environments in which employees are physically and/or temporally separatedfrom their coworkers or their work location, some or all of the time (Belanger et al., 2001;Montoya et al., 2011), and perform interdependent work activities (Wakefield et al., 2008).A wide range of work environments and groups may be virtual, includinggeographically distributed work teams, global project teams, inter-organizationalteams, and nontraditional work environments (e.g. telecommuting, satellite workcenters). In their extensive review of VT literature, Martins et al. (2004, p. 808) define VTs“as teams whose members use technology to varying degrees in working acrosslocational, temporal, and relational boundaries to accomplish an interdependent task.”They further note the research shift, away from defining VTs as a type of team tocontrast with a traditional face-to-face team and toward an emphasis on the degree ofvirtuality or virtualness as a latent feature of all teams.

In other words, a global VT is an organizational design, in which members often:. physically are on different continents in different countries;. interact primarily through the use of computer-mediated communication

technologies (e.g. e-mail, videoconferencing, skyping); and. rarely or never see one another in person.

These VTs enable firms to be more agile and flexible in their reactions to marketdemands, such that they can expand potential labor markets and gain access to a widearray of intellectual resources (De’rosa et al., 2004; Mukherjee et al., 2012). Researchersalso recognize that virtual work provides employees with greater flexibility, such thatVT members can perform tasks according to their own flexible work schedule(De’rosa et al., 2004), which again might enhance the overall flexibility of theorganization and make it more adept at meeting market needs.

However, unlike traditional face-to-face teams, members of global VTs generally arescattered across the globe, located in different time zones, and representative of differentnational and organizational cultures (Chevrier, 2003; Gressgard, 2011; Martins et al.,2004; Montoya et al., 2011). Such characteristics pose serious challenges to the effectivemanagement of VTs. In addition, the use of asynchronous communication media(e.g. e-mail) constrains the ability of VT members to interact effectively in real time(Bell and Kozlowski, 2002). When workers are dispersed worldwide, organizationalidentification should play a vital role in binding them to the organization(Wiesenfeld et al., 2001). Extant research models recognize the important role oforganizational identification for group and team effectiveness, yet even with theproliferation of research acknowledging VTs as integral to modern organizations,relatively few theoretical efforts have examined the different antecedents oforganizational identification in conjunction with the cultural variables.

2.1 Organizational identificationOrganizational identification suggests a perception of unity with an organization(Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Cooper and Thatcher, 2010). The theoretical tenets

Organizationalidentification

529

of social identity theory (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Tajfel and Turner, 1979)and self-categorization theory (Turner, 1987) form the foundation of organizationalidentification. It refers to the degree to which individuals define themselves in terms oftheir membership in a collective, as well as the value associated with that self-definition(Cooper and Thatcher, 2010; Mael and Ashforth, 1995). Moreover, identifying with anorganization may also help people reduce their uncertainty, because uncertainty reductionis a core human motivation (Hogg and Terry, 2000). There are two components ofidentification. The cognitive component reflects the perceived degree of interests that anindividual and an organization share (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). In contrast, the affectivecomponent (feelings of pride in being part of the organization, feeling acknowledged) leadsto positive images of the organization and thus a positive social identity (Tajfel, 1982).

Strong identification may lead to a number of organizationally valued outcomes( Johnson et al., 2010). Higher levels of identification tend to embolden employeecompliance, increase motivation and job satisfaction, and may lead to higher groupcohesion, less attrition, higher cooperation, lower in-group conflict, and positivebehaviors congruent with the group’s identity (Cooper and Thatcher, 2010). In summary,greater organizational identification is linked to a range of organizationally valuedoutcomes, whereas lower organizational identification produces negativeindividual-level, group-level, and organizational-level outcomes (Johnson et al., 2010).

2.2 Organizational identification in a virtual work settingA wide range of factors could affect a virtual worker’s organizational identification.The research conducted in this field has primarily drawn from person-environment fittheory which posits that the fit between individual characteristics (e.g. individual needs,values) and environmental characteristics (e.g. organizational values, organizationalculture) affects attitudes and behaviors (Schneider, 2001; Shipp and Jansen, 2011). A largebody of literature has examined how organizational culture influences individualperceptions and has been crucial in the development of a stream of research in the domainof person-organization fit (Kristof, 1996; Robert and Wasti, 2002; Wingreen and Blanton,2007). Organizational culture can be an important determinant of competitive advantage.It is also a vital part of an employee’s immediate work environment. Early researchsuggests that organizational culture may influence to what extent an individual fits intoan organizational context (Caldwell and O’Reilly, 1990). Indeed, fit has been found toimpact a wide range of employee behavior including organizational commitment, jobsatisfaction, involvement, and turnover (Behery, 2009; Denison and Mishra, 1995;Edwards, 2008). Studies find that individuals are often attracted to organizations thathave similarities with their own personal values (Schneider, 1987, 2001). Conversely,organizations also make an active effort to recruit individuals with value congruency.Organizational values are often conveyed to employees via socialization efforts and othertangible and intangible cues such as reward ceremonies or company logos and slogans. Insum, the congruency of individual and organization values takes center stage indetermining person-organizational culture fit (Edwards, 2008; Shipp and Jansen, 2011).

In a review of the person-environment fit literature, Edwards (2008) observes that theidea of “fit” indicates the congruence between the needs of the person and the rewards ofthe environment, the abilities of the person and the demands of the environmentand finally,the similarity between the individual and its social environment. Interestingly, this hasimportant ramifications in the virtual environment which is inherently fraught with

CCM19,4

530

ambiguities and uncertainties about objective demands, rewards, and social environment.Often such rewards are not clear (Mukherjee et al., 2012), demands are less specific, and thesocial environment is contingent on electronic communication.

The above discussion implies that the cohesion-building consequences oforganizational identification may be especially important in virtual settings(Wiesenfeld et al., 2001), considering the reduced physical contact among VTmembers. In the absence of face-to-face contact, VT members cannot rely on the visible,tangible dimensions that usually define a group. Instead, scholars argue that their senseof togetherness and perceptions of belonging are glued together by organizationalidentification (Raghuram et al., 2001; Wiesenfeld et al., 2001).

Overall, extant literature suggests that organizational identification may be aparticularly effective and efficient means to enable a VT to accomplish its goals and ensureperformance. However, when the strength of organizational identification grows weakeramong virtual workers, it can lead to negative outcomes, such as stress, job dissatisfactionor even voluntary turnover. In the next section we consider how specific culturaldimensions may strengthen or attenuate VT members’ organizational identification.

3. The role of culture in VTsCulture is to society what memory is to individuals (Triandis, 1995, 2002). Cultureconstitutes one of the key issues and a significant challenge to cross-cultural VTs(Martins et al., 2004), because it represents “the values, beliefs and assumptions learnedin early childhood that distinguish one group of people from another” (Newman andNollen, 1996, p. 754). One of the most widely studied cultural frameworks, that proposedby Hofstede (1980), consists of four dimensions: individualism-collectivism, uncertaintyavoidance, power distance, and masculinity-femininity. The first two in particularprovide useful insights into how culture might influence the organizationalidentification of VT members or virtual workers. First, individualism-collectivism isperhaps the most distinguishing cultural characteristic in terms of how various societiesanalyze and process social behaviors (Earley and Gibson, 1998; Erez and Earley, 1993;Hofstede, 1980, 1991, 1994; Leung et al., 2005; Triandis, 1995, 1998). Cultural values ofindividualism and collectivism differ in their relative emphasis on independence versusinterdependence with a group (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). In individualistic cultures,independent people possess a unique pattern of traits that distinguish them from otherpeople (Markus and Kitayama, 1994; Ollo-Lopez et al., 2010), whereas in collectivisticcultures, people view the self as inherently interdependent with the group to which itbelongs. Prior work suggests that individualism-collectivism affects the ways peopleform trust (Doney et al., 1998; Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999), such as their willingness totrust VT members. As the individualism-collectivism dimension affects how anindividual evaluates and prioritizes individual goals in relation to collective norms andgoals (Chevrier, 2003; Roth et al., 2011), we argue that it plays an important role inaccentuating virtual work-related individual-level factors. Second, uncertaintyavoidance pertains to the degree to which organizational members want to avoidambiguity and uncertainty in favor of clear goals and operating guidelines. It affectspeople’s willingness to accept uncertainty (Park, 1993; Keil et al., 2000), which is aninevitable part of virtual work-related environmental factors.

At this point, it is worth mentioning that although Hofstede’s framework wasoriginally developed for national-level analyses (Minkov and Hofstede, 2011), many

Organizationalidentification

531

researchers have applied it to individual levels (Lim et al., 2004; Oyserman et al., 2002;Roth et al., 2011). To date, to the best of our knowledge, no researchers have directlyexamined the role of cultural dimensions for determining organizational identificationin a virtual setting. We address this gap by exploring the role of cultural variables asmoderators of virtual work factors and organizational identification.

4. Framework developmentIn this paper, our principal goal is to identify various antecedents of organizationalidentification in a virtual setting as recognized by research and offer a systematicresearch framework that underscores the crucial role of individualism-collectivism anduncertainty avoidance as potential moderators. To achieve this end, we focus on thevirtual work-related individual-level factors of interpersonal trust and need foraffiliation, which have been found to have special significance in a virtual setting(Raghuram et al., 2001; Wiesenfeld et al., 2001). We also consider virtual environmentalfactors, namely, dispersion and ICT-enabled communication (Wiesenfeld et al., 1999,2001). These factors are antecedents of organizational identification as identified byprior research, and we explore them in conjunction with the two cultural dimensions.

4.1 Virtual work-related individual factors, organizational identification, andindividualism-collectivism4.1.1 Interpersonal trust. Interpersonal trust is “expectations, assumptions, or beliefsabout the likelihood that another’s future actions will be beneficial, favorable, or at leastnot detrimental to one’s own interests” (Raghuram et al., 2001, p. 387). Interpersonal trustlevels thus define VT members’ relationships with other members of the team andorganization (Robert et al., 2009) and can lead to a myriad of organizationally valuedoutcomes (Gaur et al., 2011; Robert et al., 2009). For instance, the presence of trust in anexchange increases collaborative behavior, reduces transaction costs and alleviatesconcerns of opportunism and misappropriation (Gaur et al., 2011; Zaheer et al., 1998).Interpersonal trust between team members has even greater importance in a virtualcontext, because physical distance creates uncertainties about whether others’(supervisors’ or coworkers’) actions will be beneficial or favorable. Since VT membersare separated from one another, they interact through various electronic media. In suchsettings one member cannot readily or directly monitor another. In simple terms, directsupervision and external controls are not an option in virtual settings, so the presence ofinterpersonal trust as a form of informal control is crucial. Higher levels of trust lead togreater confidence, which may bridge the physical distances between organizationalmembers and promote increased psychological connectedness with the organization(Cummings, 2011; O’Hara-Devereaux and Johansen, 1994). In addition, interpersonaltrust is widely considered critical for effective functioning of groups (Jones and George,1998; Piccoli and Ives, 2003). Trust among team workers leads to better communicationand coordination ( Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999; Sarker et al., 2003, 2011). Thus, it can bereasonably argued that the presence of interpersonal trust among global VT membersmay help them to rely on each other and establish durable social ties. Indeed, formationof social ties can create a sense of attachment and fondness with the workplace. In thissense, VT workers should identify with their organizations, and we propose:

P1. In a virtual setting, higher levels of interpersonal trust among VT membersare associated with higher levels of organizational identification.

CCM19,4

532

Furthermore, people from collectivist cultures tend to adhere more to group norms thando those from individualistic cultures (Hofstede, 1980; Hwang and Francesco, 2010;Leung et al., 2005). Individualism, as a social pattern, consists of loosely linkedindividuals who view themselves as independent of collectives and are concerned withsustaining their own preferences, goals, needs, rights, and contracts (Roth et al., 2011;Hwang and Francesco, 2010). Conversely, collectivism entails closely linked individualswho see themselves as members of one or more collectives (e.g. family, work groups,in-groups, organizations, tribes, suburban communities). Collectivists are prone tosubordinate their personal goals in favor of the goals of the collective, regardless of howthey might feel (Bhagat et al., 2002; Hwang and Francesco, 2010). Thus, theirmotivations primarily reflect the norms, duties, and obligations imposed by the groupsto which they belong, whereas individualistic societies accord individuals’ personalinterests greater importance than the needs of the group (Wagner, 1995).An individualistic value orientation predisposes people to express greater resistanceto working in teams (Kirkman and Shapiro, 2001). In the tight social framework createdby collectivism, a person’s identity instead derives from the social system, because he orshe has exchanged loyalty to the group in return for protection. This orientation towardthe self or the group likely influences people’s attitudes and behavior in the context ofvirtual work teams (Hui et al., 1991; Ollo-Lopez et al., 2010). For example, in colleagueevaluations, collectivists’ evaluations of other collectivists tend to be more generous,which produces greater group identification, harmony, and trust (Gomez et al., 2000).

The development of trust also requires that team members accept theirinterdependence. Because interpersonal trust and organizational identification arelikely stronger among virtual workers with collectivistic orientations, compared withworkers with individualistic orientations, we propose:

P2. In a virtual work setting, the positive relationship between interpersonal trustand organizational identification is stronger in the presence of collectivismand weaker in the presence of individualism.

4.1.2 Need for affiliation. Need for affiliation is an important predictor of organizationalidentification in virtual settings (Thatcher and Zhu, 2006; Wiesenfeld et al., 2001).Higher levels of need for affiliation indicate a stronger urge for creating andmaintaining social relationships (Steinmetz et al., 2011; Yamaguchi, 2003). Suchindividuals strive to engage in activities that involve personal interactions and createsocial contacts (O’Fallon and Butterfield, 2011). Thus, researchers argue thatindividuals with greater levels of need for affiliation often feel more compelled toidentify themselves with their organizations. This occurs because such individuals’perception of self is closely connected to other people or groups (Steinmetz et al., 2011;Wiesenfeld et al., 2001; Yamaguchi, 2003). Organizations also help fulfill the need forsuch close social interactions. Some researchers posit that need for affiliation is apersonality attribute that reflects a person’s aspiration for social contact orbelongingness (Veroff and Veroff, 1980) and thus relates positively to collectivism(Eby and Dobbins, 1997; Pang and Schultheiss, 2005). In sum, scholars agree that needfor affiliation, an individual-level attribute, has positive impact on organizationalidentification.

We argue that greater levels of collectivism may fortify the positive influence of needfor affiliation on organizational identification in several ways. In general, collectivists

Organizationalidentification

533

tend to put more emphasis on groups and collective goals than on individual goals(Minkov and Hofstede, 2011). A collectivistic society thus consists of closely linkedindividuals who see themselves as belonging to one or more collectives and who aremotivated by the norms, duties, and obligations imposed by their collectives(Bhagat et al., 2002). Accordingly, a VT member with high levels of need for affiliationand who is also from a collectivist culture may feel a greater urge to identify with theorganization as his or her cultural backdrop supports or legitimizes such an endeavor.Conversely, an individual possessing the need for affiliation characteristic, but from anindividualistic cultural background, may feel less likely to do the same due to lack ofsocial legitimacy. VT members having high levels of both – need for affiliation andcollectivistic orientation – may also reach out more often to better understandorganizational values and norms. In turn, it is possible such members will construethemselves as an integral part of their organizations. On the other hand, people withindividualist orientation often perceive need to belong as a weakness and actually as asymbol of less independence (Cooper and Thatcher, 2010; Markus and Kitayama, 1991).Indeed, such an orientation has been found to be associated with higher levels ofautonomy and lower levels of need to establish relationships (Hui and Villareal, 1989).Consequently, we expect that need for affiliation or aspiration to become a part of thecollective (e.g. the focal organization in this case) will have a stronger effect onorganizational identification in the presence of collectivism; such positive effect willweaken in the presence of individualism. Stated formally:

P3. In a virtual setting, the positive relationship between need for affiliation andorganizational identification is stronger in the presence of collectivism andweaker in the presence of individualism.

4.2 Virtual work-related environmental factors, organizational identification, anduncertainty avoidance4.2.1 Dispersion. VTs are characterized by different types and levels of dispersion(Siebdrat et al., 2009). A global VT, as we stated at the outset, is often geographically,temporally, organizationally, and culturally dispersed. Whether such dispersionsweaken organizational identification of global VT members is a point of debate forscholars and practitioners (Cummings, 2011; Martins et al., 2004; Wiesenfeld et al., 1999).

Strength of identification can diminish in multiple ways when the level of dispersionis high. The greater the physical distance between the VT member and its organization,the individual concerned gets exposed to fewer tangible cues that are important in thedevelopment of organizational identification. Geographic dispersion prevents VTmembers from engaging in the formal and informal exchanges that establishes a sense ofcloseness and familiarity. For instance, organizational ceremonies, daily face-to-facechats with coworkers are absent in the virtual environment. The physical distancebetween the dispersed employees and their employing organization reduces the visibilityof their organizational membership, as well as their exposure to organizationalstructures and processes that determine perceptions of belonging to the organization(Wiesenfeld et al., 2001). Obvious cues of identification are less available whenemployees work from a client site, a satellite office, or their own home. In the absence ofproximity global VT members may struggle to develop an emotional bond with theorganization (Siebdrat et al., 2009). On the other hand, physical proximity can boost

CCM19,4

534

social bonding and ties in the workplace. Such ties often help individuals better identifythemselves with the broader goals of the organization (Sluss and Ashforth, 2008).

Similarly, cultural dispersion, or the extent to which a VT consists of employeesfrom different countries and cultures (DeSanctis and Monge, 1999), can diminish theorganizational identification of members. For example, in the absence of formal andinformal cues, workers might look for homogeneity with their team members, but if theVT members are very heterogeneous (culturally), they feel more isolated from the focalorganization. Likewise, VT members are also often members of ad hoc groups thatare established for a short span of time to exploit specific market opportunities(Mukherjee et al., 2012). Such VTs are created by picking members from multipleorganizations that are interconnected for a specific strategic purpose. Existence of suchorganizational dispersion may also attenuate levels of organizational identification inVT members (O’Leary and Cummings, 2007). Accordingly, we propose:

P4. In a virtual setting, the level of dispersion among VT members is negativelyassociated with organizational identification.

Communicating and understanding formal and informal cues throughcomputer-mediated communication media also might pose serious challenges. Extantresearch has identified two common problems: challenges associated with monitoring,such that supervisors have trouble managing employees they cannot see, and theisolation that virtual workers encounter because they are physically separated, andsometimes culturally dispersed, from the human network in conventional workplaces(Fiol and O’Connor, 2005). When employees are dispersed, it is also more difficult toenforce organizational rules and adhere to standard procedures. From a culturalstandpoint, individuals with a greater uncertainty avoidance orientation should havemore difficulty accepting this dispersion, because they feel threatened by uncertain andambiguous situations and tend to avoid them (Hofstede, 1980). All types of dispersionalso imply less reliance on rules and procedures, which leads to more uncertainty.The absence of formal rules and cues, in a virtual setting in particular, might beperceived as more ambiguous and uncertain. In addition, dispersion may also imply thatVT members are dealing with language barriers, time zone differences and oftenambiguous cross-cultural cues. Moreover, inter-organizational VTs often create blurryorganizational boundaries and greater organizational dispersion. Under suchcircumstances an uncertainty-avoiding individual, who usually prefers a morestructured environment, may experience even more psychological detachment with hisor her focal organization (Ollo-Lopez et al., 2010). We propose:

P5. In a virtual setting, the negative relationship between the level of dispersionand organizational identification is stronger in the presence of stronguncertainty avoidance and weaker in the presence of weak uncertaintyavoidance.

4.2.2 ICT-enabled communication. Communication is the backbone of virtual work andorganizations (DeSanctis and Monge, 1999), with its crucial role in disseminatingorganizational culture and knowledge across different functional and hierarchical levels(Al-Ghamdi et al., 2007). When performing work activities in a globally distributedenvironment, individuals access information and communicate with colleagues froma variety of physical locations, possibly at different times (Brandl and Neyer, 2009).

Organizationalidentification

535

Work no longer occurs in a shared context, as in the traditional office environment, butinstead involves the diverse input and perspectives of colleagues in multiple physicalcontexts, which may be scattered around the globe (Leonard, 2011). In such anenvironment, communication is vital to create a shared interpretive context among theVT members. If a VT consists of members from two or more organizations, the creationof this shared context is absolutely necessary so that the team members develop a sharedunderstanding of values, norms and goals of their workgroup (Mukherjee et al., 2012).

Thus, it is not surprising that a review of research into distributed and virtual workenvironments reveals that communication has been one of the most commonlyresearched constructs (Ahuja and Galvin, 2003; Bailey and Kurland, 2002; Hertel et al.,2005), often with regard to communication patterns (Duxbury and Neufeld, 1999) andparticularly about changes in these patterns introduced by the virtual environment.Communication in globally distributed VTs must be supported by appropriatecommunication technologies. A dominant research stream pertaining to communicationin the virtual work environment examines communication mode choice, such as e-mail,telephone, video conferencing, and face-to-face (Altschuller and Benbunan-Fich, 2010;Montoya et al., 2011; Wiesenfeld et al., 1999). Different theories provide bases for thesestudies, including media richness, social presence, and social information processing.A stable, reliable wideband platform provided by ICT supports effective communicationin a virtual setting (Kasper-Fuehrer and Ashkanasy, 2001; Martins et al., 2004).Advanced collaborative communication technologies provided by several multinationalcompanies, for instance, Cisco’s Quad, Microsoft’s Lync and Skype, IBM’s LotusConnections may provide dispersed global VT workers with a rich platform forspontaneous interaction and almost real time communication experience (Cummings,2011). In addition, the recent proliferation of social networks such as Facebook andLinkedIn makes it easier to create and maintain virtual social relationships. Global VTmembers may get to know one another personally on a virtual platform. Such informalrelationships established on the virtual platform may help build trust among such globalVT members and create, or even increase, the psychological attachment of VT membersto their focal organizations. We propose:

P6. In a virtual setting, higher-level communication among VT members throughrich and effective ICT is associated with greater organizational identification.

Yet uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1991; Minkov and Hofstede, 2011) also might affectthe ICT-enabled communication environment and its relationship to organizationalidentification. People from cultures with high uncertainty avoidance levels have a lowertolerance for uncertainty and higher need for structure (i.e. formal rules and regulations)than people from cultures with low uncertainty avoidance levels (Hofstede, 1991;Doney et al., 1998). Empirical evidence indicates that those in high uncertaintyavoidance cultures often demonstrate strong resistance to change (Kale and Barnes,1992; Lim et al., 2004), whereas people in low uncertainty avoidance cultures exhibitlower change resistance (Lim et al., 2004), presumably because change often involvesuncertainty. As we noted previously, ICT-enabled communication inherently involvesmore uncertainty than co-located physical environments. Furthermore, communicatingby the internet and similar media demands different communication habits and styles.In addition, in a multicultural team, members may communicate using differentlinguistic and cultural contexts. Therefore, people in uncertainty-accepting cultures

CCM19,4

536

should be more likely to develop higher organizational identification through their use ofICT-enabled communication than people in uncertainty-avoiding cultures. In simpleterms, VT workers from uncertainty-accepting cultures should identify with theirorganizations by making the best use of ICT-enabled communication:

P7. In a virtual setting, the positive relationship between ICT-enabled communicationand organizational identification is stronger in the presence of weak uncertaintyavoidance and weaker in the presence of strong uncertainty avoidance.

5. Discussion and conclusionThe key motivation for this research is to refine the conceptualization of organizationalidentification in the context of a virtual work environment. To this end, we proposed amodel of organizational identification for virtual workers that examines the role ofcultural dimensions. This research framework focuses on two of Hofstede’s (1980)dimensions, namely, individualism-collectivism and uncertainty avoidance, whichappear likely to influence the organizational identification of a VT worker throughboth individual-level (interpersonal trust, need for affiliation) and environmental(spatial and cultural dispersion; ICT-enabled communication) factors.

This research context is important for two reasons. First, VTs are critical elements ofthe modern competitive landscape, and business organizations use them with increasingfrequency as valuable competitive tools. The use of VTs seems likely to gain even moreimportance, implying an increasing need to understand how specific factors contribute tothe successful management and development of VTs. Second, general consensus amongleading scholars in the VT field holds that the role of cultural variables in virtual workenvironments is a critical issue that merits rational examination (Martins et al., 2004).

There are many implications for managers associated with a successful extension ofthis research perspective and tests of the proposed model. VTs are an inescapable realityin the contemporary workspace, and effective managers must understand how, why,and in which conditions they can improve organizational performance. Understandingthe impact of “virtualness” on team processes also can give managers effective tools,congruent with lateral organizations. To the extent that managers understand theimpact of virtual work environments and individual factors on VTs, they can target andattempt to create a certain level and type of organizational identification among theirassociates. Our research has the potential to begin to help managers understand theirVT members’ experiences, which should give them insights into, and empathy relativeto, how the VT job context makes people feel about themselves and what they do. Theinvestigation of VTs and their impact on organizational identification also can revealproblems associated with the use of VTs and perhaps lead to the identification of bestpractices to be shared and disseminated among organizations.

In particular, this research could lead to a useful typology of VT members that wouldenable managers to select employees appropriately and design effective VTs that arecongruent with the team’s task. If further research offers support for our propositions,we could couple the individualism-collectivism dimensions with high and lowuncertainty avoidance to produce a four-quadrant grid of VT member types (Figure 2).

The most desirable team member type appears to be a person from a collectivistculture who experiences low uncertainty avoidance, because according to ourpropositions, organizational identification is strongest for such people, likely due tofour conditions:

Organizationalidentification

537

(1) stronger positive effect of higher levels of interpersonal trust on organizationalidentification;

(2) stronger positive effect of higher levels of need for affiliation on organizationalidentification;

(3) reduced negative effect of level of dispersion on organizational identification;and

(4) stronger positive effect of rich and effective ICT on organizationalidentification.

This rationale for the existence of an ideal VT member type flows from the propositionsof the model for each of the four types in Figure 2. If the typology can be validatedthrough further research, managers would have a systematic means to predict theeffectiveness of associates across a range of VT projects. They also would be equipped toallocate scarce resources more effectively across a multitude of projects. For example,the VT member type most likely to have the best organizational identification(quadrant 4) probably is fairly rare, because people from collectivist cultures rarely

Figure 2.VT member types relatedto organizationalidentification

HighUncertainty

Avoidance

LowUncertainty

Avoidance

Individualism Collectivism

Quadrant 1

• Low organizational identification

• Match with lowest levels of virtualness

Quadrant 2

• Moderate organizational identification

• Match with team assignments characterized by less dispersion and lower technology

• Need “high touch” team processes

Quadrant 3

• Moderate organizational identification

• Match with team assignments of high dispersion and high technology

• May work too independently and produce a “sum of the parts” project outcome vs. a “sum of the whole” project

Quadrant 4

• High organizational identification

• Match with highest levels of virtualness in teams

• Will work independently in team assignments of high dispersion and high technology

Moredispersion

effect; LessICT effect

Lessdispersion

effect; MoreICT effect

Lower trust benefit; Lowerneed for affiliation benefit

Higher trust benefit; Higherneed for affiliation benefit

CCM19,4

538

exhibit low levels of uncertainty avoidance. If managers find such employees, theyshould assign them to the most critical and challenging VT assignments, for whichstrong organizational identification and interpersonal trust are key to strong teamperformance. In contrast, team members who fall into quadrant 2 likely experience thelowest levels of organizational identification when working in a VT context and shouldnot be assigned to teams with significant levels of virtuality. Similarly, employees whofall into quadrants 1 and 3 may be best matched to team assignments with moderatelevels of virtuality, and they should experience moderate levels of organizationalidentification. The members of quadrant 1 may be the most difficult for managersto control in a virtual setting and those in quadrant 3 should be the most likely to feel theisolation and stress of needing to self-organize (Fiol and O’Connor, 2005).

A final implication of the proposed framework arises from the dynamic nature ofthe organizational identification construct. Organizational identification changes,so any measure of it is necessarily temporary, evolving, and context specific ratherthan fixed and abiding (Alvesson et al., 2008). The relationship between VTs andorganizational identification proposed in our model should be studied on a longitudinalbasis. Empirically, our propositions can also be tested by employing longitudinal casestudy analysis (Chevrier, 2003) or collecting data from VT members from differentmultinationals. Structural equation modeling could be used to test all the factors of themodel simultaneously. Since, identification is a dynamic concept, managersresponsible for managing such teams would be well advised to assess and analyzelevels of organizational identification among VT members over time.

In conclusion, the proposed framework makes three important contributions.First, it reviews the development of organizational identification in a relatively newcontext, namely, VTs. Second, it includes two contextual variables (spatial-culturaldispersion and ICT-enabled communication) and two individual-level variables(interpersonal trust and need for affiliation) as determinants of organizationalidentification, which makes the framework comprehensive. Third, because jobs crossgeographical boundaries frequently, such as in alliances, multinational corporations,and outsourcing contracts, this investigation of the role of cultural variables indetermining the organizational identification of global virtual workers enriches multiplestreams of literature.

References

Ahuja, M. and Galvin, J. (2003), “Socialization in virtual groups”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29,pp. 161-85.

Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Gurau, C. (2011), “Virtual team performance in a highlycompetitive environment”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 161-90.

Al-Ghamdi, M.S., Matthew, H.R. and Zafar, U.A. (2007), “How employees learn about corporatestrategy: an empirical analysis of a Saudi manufacturing company”, Cross CulturalManagement: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 273-85.

Altschuller, S. and Benbunan-Fich, R. (2010), “Trust, performance and the communicationprocess in ad-hoc decision making virtual teams”, Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 17-47.

Alvesson, M., Ashcraft, K.L. and Thomas, R. (2008), “Identify matters: reflections on theconstruction of identity scholarship in organization studies”, Organization, Vol. 15 No. 1,pp. 5-28.

Organizationalidentification

539

Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 14, pp. 20-39.

Badrinarayan, V., Madhavaram, S. and Granot, E. (2011), “Global virtual sales teams:a conceptual framework of the influence of intellectual and social capital on effectiveness”,Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. XXXI No. 3, pp. 311-24.

Bailey, D.E. and Kurland, N.B. (2002), “A review of telework research: findings, newdirections, and lessons for the study of modern work”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 23, pp. 383-400.

Behery, H.M. (2009), “Person/organization job-fitting and affective commitment to theorganization”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2,pp. 179-96.

Belanger, F., Collins, R. and Cheney, P. (2001), “Technology requirements and work groupcommunication for telecommuters”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 12, pp. 155-76.

Bell, B.S. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2002), “A typology of virtual teams: implications for effectiveleadership”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 27, pp. 14-49.

Berry, G. (2011), “Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams: understanding why traditional teamskills are insufficient”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 186-206.

Bhagat, R.S., Kedia, B.L., Harveston, P.D. and Triandis, H.C. (2002), “Cultural variations in thecross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: an integrative framework”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 204-21.

Brandl, J. and Neyer, A.K. (2009), “Applying cognitive adjustment theory to cross culturaltraining for global virtual teams”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 48, pp. 341-53.

Brewer, M.B. and Kramer, R.M. (1986), “Choice behavior in social dilemmas: effects of socialidentity, group size and decision framing”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,Vol. 3, pp. 543-9.

Caldwell, D. and O’Reilly, C. (1990), “Measuring person-job fit using a profile comparisonprocess”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 648-57.

Chevrier, S. (2003), “Cross-cultural management in multinational project groups”, Journal ofWorld Business, Vol. 38, pp. 141-9.

Cooper, D. and Thatcher, M.B.S. (2010), “Identification in organizations: the role of self-conceptorientations and identification motives”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 4,pp. 516-38.

Cummings, N.J. (2011), “Geography is alive and well in virtual teams”, Communication of theACM, Vol. 54 No. 8, pp. 24-6.

Denison, D. and Mishra, A. (1995), “Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness”,Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 204-33.

Derosa, D.M., Hantula, D.A., Kock, N. and D’Arcy, J. (2004), “Trust and leadership in virtualteamwork: a media naturalness perspective”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43Nos 2/3, pp. 219-32.

DeSanctis, G. and Monge, P. (1999), “Communication processes for virtual organizations”,Organization Science, Vol. 10, pp. 693-703.

Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P. and Mullen, M. (1998), “Understanding national culture on thedevelopment of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 601-20.

Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), “Organizational images and memberidentification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 239-63.

CCM19,4

540

Duxbury, L.E. and Neufeld, D. (1999), “An empirical evaluation of the impacts of telecommutingon intra-organizational communication”, Journal of Engineering and TechnologyManagement, Vol. 16, pp. 1-28.

Earley, P.C. and Gibson, C.B. (1998), “Taking stock in our progress: 100 years of solidarity andcommunity”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24, pp. 265-304.

Eby, L.T. and Dobbins, G.H. (1997), “Collectivistic orientation in teams: an individual andgroup-level analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 275-95.

Edwards, R.J. (2008), “Person-environment fit in organizations: a stock of theoretical progress”,The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 167-230.

Erez, M. and Earley, P.C. (1993), Culture, Self-identity, and Work, Oxford University Press,New York, NY.

Fiol, C.M. and O’Connor, E.J. (2005), “Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams:untangling the contradictions”, Organization Science, Vol. 16, pp. 19-32.

Gaur, A., Mukherjee, D., Gaur, S. and Schmid, F. (2011), “Environmental and firm level influenceson inter-organizational trust and SME performance”, Journal of Management Studies,Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 1752-81.

Gomez, C., Kirkman, B.L. and Shapiro, D.L. (2000), “The impact of collectivism andin-group/out-group membership on the evaluation generosity of team members”, Academyof Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 1097-106.

Gressgard, J.L. (2011), “Virtual team collaboration and innovation in organizations”, TeamPerformance Management, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2, pp. 102-19.

Hertel, G., Geister, S. and Konradt, U. (2005), “Managing virtual teams: a review of currentempirical research”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 15, pp. 69-95.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London.

Hofstede, G. (1994), “Management scientists are human”, Management Science, Vol. 40, pp. 4-13.

Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J. (2000), “Social identity and self-categorization processes inorganizational contexts”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 121-40.

Hui, C.H. and Villareal, M.J. (1989), “Individualism-collectivism and psychological needs: theirrelationships in two cultures”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 310-23.

Hui, C.H., Triandis, H.C. and Yee, C. (1991), “Cultural differences in reward allocation: iscollectivism the explanation?”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 30, pp. 145-57.

Hwang, A. and Francesco, A.M. (2010), “The influence of individualism-collectivism and powerdistance on use of feedback channels and consequences for learning”, Academy ofManagement Learning & Education, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 243-57.

Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Leidner, D.E. (1999), “Communication and trust in global virtual teams”,Organization Science, Vol. 10, pp. 791-815.

Johnson, R.E., Chang, C.H. and Yang, L.Q. (2010), “Commitment and motivation at work:the relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 226-45.

Jones, G.R. and George, J.M. (1998), “The experience and evolution of trust: implications forcooperation and teamwork”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 531-46.

Kale, S.H. and Barnes, J.W. (1992), “Understanding the domain of cross-national buyer-sellerinteractions”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23, pp. 101-32.

Organizationalidentification

541

Kasper-Fuehrer, E.C. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2001), “Communicating trustworthiness andbuilding trust in interorganizational virtual organizations”, Journal of Management,Vol. 27, pp. 235-54.

Kedia, B.L. and Mukherjee, D. (2009), “Understanding offshoring: a framework based ondisintegration, location, and externalization advantages”, Journal of World Business,Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 250-61.

Keil, M., Tan, B.C.Y., Wei, K.K. and Saarinen, T. (2000), “A cross-cultural study on escalation ofcommitment behavior in software projects”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 299-324.

Kirkman, B.L. and Shapiro, D.L. (2001), “The impact of team members’ cultural values onproductivity, cooperation, and empowerment in self-managing work teams”, Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 597-617.

Kristof, A.L. (1996), “Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizationsmeasurement and implications”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 1-49.

Leonard, B. (2011), “Managing virtual teams”, HR Magazine, June, pp. 39-42.

Leung, K., Bhagat, R.S., Buchan, N.R., Erez, M. and Gibson, C.B. (2005), “Culture andinternational business: recent advances and their implications for business research”,Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 36, pp. 357-78.

Lim, K., Leung, K., Sia, C.L. and Lee, M.K.O. (2004), “Is ecommerce boundary-less? Effects ofindividualism-collectivism and uncertainty avoidance on internet shopping”, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 545-59.

Mael, F. and Ashforth, B.E. (1995), “Loyal from day one: biodata, organizational identification,and turnover among newcomers”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 309-33.

Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1991), “Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion,and motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 98, pp. 224-53.

Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1994), “A collective fear of the collective: implications for selvesand theories of selves”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 568-79.

Martins, L.L., Gilson, L.L. and Maynard, M.T. (2004), “Virtual teams: what do we know andwhere do we go from here?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 805-35.

Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G. (2011), “The evolution of Hofstede’s doctrine”, Cross CulturalManagement: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 10-20.

Montoya, M.M., Massey, A.P. and Lockwood, S.N. (2011), “3D collaborative virtual environments:exploring the link between collaborative behaviors and team performance”, DecisionSciences, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 451-76.

Mukherjee, D., Lahiri, S., Mukherjee, D. and Billing, T.K. (2012), “Leading virtual teams: how docognitive, social, and behavioral capabilities matter?”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 2,pp. 273-90.

Newman, K.L. and Nollen, S.D. (1996), “Culture and congruence: the fit between managementpractices and national culture”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 27 No. 4,pp. 753-79.

O’Fallon, M.J. and Butterfield, K.D. (2011), “Moral differentiation: exploring boundaries of the‘monkey see, monkey do’ perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102 No. 3,pp. 379-99.

O’Hara-Devereaux, M. and Johansen, R. (1994), Globalwork, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

O’Leary, M.B. and Cummings, J.N. (2007), “The spatial, temporal, and configurationalcharacteristics of geographic dispersion in teams”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 433-52.

CCM19,4

542

Ollo-Lopez, A., Bayo-Moriones, A. and Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010), “The impact of country-levelfactors on the use of new work practices”, Journal ofWorldBusiness, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 394-403.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M. and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002), “Rethinking individualism andcollectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses”, PsychologicalBulletin, Vol. 1, pp. 3-72.

Pang, J.S. and Schultheiss, O.C. (2005), “Assessing implicit motives in US college students: effectsof picture type and position, gender and ethnicity, and cross-cultural comparisons”,Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 85, pp. 280-94.

Park, H. (1993), “Cultural impact on life insurance penetration: a cross-national analysis”,International Journal of Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 342-50.

Piccoli, G. and Ives, B. (2003), “Trust and the unintended effects of behavior control in virtualteams”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 365-95.

Pratt, M.G., Fuller, M.A. and Northcraft, G.B. (2000), “Media selection and identification indistributed groups: the potential costs of ‘rich’ media”, in Mannix, E.A., Neale, M.A. andGriffith, T.L. (Eds), Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Vol. 3, JAI Press,Stamford, CT, pp. 231-55.

Purvanova, K.R. and Bono, E.J. (2009), “Transformational leadership in context: face-to-face andvirtual teams”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 343-57.

Raghuram, S. (2011), “Organizational identification among young software professionals inIndia”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 18, pp. 3913-28.

Raghuram, S., Garud, R., Wiesenfeld, B. and Gupta, G. (2001), “Factors contributing to virtualwork adjustment”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27, pp. 383-405.

Rapp, A., Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. and Rapp, T. (2010), “Managing sales teams in a virtualenvironment”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 27, pp. 213-24.

Robert, C. and Wasti, S.A. (2002), “Organizational individualism and collectivism: theoreticaldevelopment and an empirical test of a measure”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28 No. 4,pp. 544-66.

Robert, L.P. Jr, Dennis, A.R. and Hung, Y.C. (2009), “Individual swift trust and knowledge-basedtrust in face-to-face and virtual team members”, Journal of Management InformationSystems, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 241-79.

Roth, K., Kostova, T. and Dakhli, M. (2011), “Exploring cultural misfit: causes andconsequences”, International Business Review, Vol. 20, pp. 15-26.

Sarker, S., Valacich, J.S. and Sarker, S. (2003), “Virtual team trust: instrument development andvalidation in an IS educational environment”, Information Resources ManagementJournal, Vol. 16, pp. 35-55.

Sarker, S., Ahuja, M., Sarker, S. and Kirkeby, S. (2011), “Revisiting the role of trust andcommunication in globally-distributed teams: a social network analysis perspective”,Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 273-309.

Schneider, B. (1987), “The people make the place”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 437-53.

Schneider, B. (2001), “Fits about fit”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 50,pp. 141-52.

Schweitzer, L. and Duxbury, L. (2010), “Conceptualizing and measuring the virtuality of teams”,Information Systems Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 267-95.

Shipp, A.J. and Jansen, K.J. (2011), “Reinterpreting time in fit theory: crafting and recraftingnarratives of fit in medias res”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 76-101.

Organizationalidentification

543

Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M. and Ernst, H. (2009), “How to manage virtual teams”, MIT Sloan

Management Review, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 63-8.

Sivunen, A. (2006), “Strengthening identification with the team in virtual teams: the leaders’perspective”, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 15, pp. 345-66.

Sluss, M.D. and Ashforth, E.B. (2008), “How relational and organizational identificationconverge”, Organization Science, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 807-23.

Steinmetz, H., Park, Y.-K. and Kabst, R. (2011), “The relationship between needs and job attitudesin South Korea and Germany”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 623-44.

Tajfel, H. (1982), “Instrumentality, identity and social comparisons”, in Tajfel, H. (Ed.), SocialIdentity and Intergroup Relations, 2nd ed., Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24.

Thatcher, S.M.B. and Zhu, X. (2006), “Changing identities in a changing workplace:identification, identity enactment, self-verification, and telecommuting”, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 31, pp. 1076-88.

Thomas, D. and Bostrom, R.P. (2010), “Vital signs for virtual teams: an empirically developed triggermodel for technology adaptation interventions”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 115-42.

Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Triandis, H.C. (1998), “Vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism: theory andresearch implications for international comparative management”, Advances in

International Comparative Management, Vol. 12, pp. 7-35.

Triandis, H.C. (2002), “Generic individualism and collectivism”, in Gannon, M.J. andNewman, K.L. (Eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Cross-cultural Management, Blackwell,Oxford.

Turner, J.C. (1987), Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory, Blackwell,New York, NY.

Veroff, J. and Veroff, J.B. (1980), Social Incentives: A Life Span Developmental Approach,Academic Press, New York, NY.

Wagner, J.A. (1995), “Studies of individualism-collectivism: effects of cooperation in groups”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 152-72.

Wakefield, R.L., Leidner, D.E. and Garrison, G. (2008), “A model of conflict, leadership andperformance in virtual teams”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 434-55.

Wiesenfeld, B.M., Raghuram, S. and Garud, R. (1999), “Communication patterns as determinants oforganizational identification in a virtual organization”,OrganizationScience, Vol. 10, pp. 777-90.

Wiesenfeld, B.M., Raghuram, S. and Garud, R. (2001), “Organizational identification amongvirtual workers: the role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based social support”,Journal of Management, Vol. 27, pp. 213-29.

Wingreen, S.C. and Blanton, J.E. (2007), “A social cognitive interpretation of person-organizationfitting: the maintenance and development of professional technical competency”, Human

Resource Management, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 631-50.

Yamaguchi, I. (2003), “The relationships among individual differences, needs and equitysensitivity”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 324-44.

Zaheer, A., McEvily, B. and Perrone, V. (1998), “Does trust matter? Exploring the effect ofinterorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 9,pp. 141-59.

CCM19,4

544

Further reading

Raghuram, S., Garud, R. and Wiesenfeld, B. (1998), “Telework: managing distances in aconnected world”, Journal of Strategy and Business, Vol. 10, pp. 7-9.

About the authorsDr Debmalya Mukherjee is an Assistant Professor at The University of Akron, USA. He receivedhis PhD in Business Administration from the University of Memphis. His research interestsconcern emerging economy firms, offshoring, interorganizational relationship issues, andinternational strategic alliances. His works have appeared or have been accepted in Journal ofManagement Studies, Journal of Business Research, European Management Journal,Management Decision, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Journal of World Business,European Business Review and Leadership and Organizational Development Journal amongothers. He also serves on the editorial review board of the Leadership and OrganizationalDevelopment Journal. Debmalya Mukherjee is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:dmukher@uakron.edu

Dr Susan C. Hanlon is an Associate Professor of Management and the Assistant Dean at TheUniversity of Akron, USA. She holds a PhD in Management from the University of Memphis.Her research interests include the domain of psychological capital, management developmentand collaborative processes. Her work has appeared in Academy of Management Review, FamilyBusiness Review, Journal of Management Development, Group and Organization Managementand Marketing Management Journal among several others.

Dr Ben L. Kedia holds the Robert Wang Chair of Excellence in International Business and isDirector of the Wang Center for International Business Education and Research (CIBER) at TheUniversity of Memphis, USA. He received his PhD from Case-Western Reserve University, USA.His teaching and research interests include Cross-Cultural and Comparative Management, andInternational Business Strategy. His research has been published in numerous journals includingthe Academy of Management Review, Organization Science, Journal of Management Studies,Journal of World Business, Management International Review, International Business Review andEuropean Management Journal.

Dr Prashant Srivastava is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at The University of Akron,Ohio. He earned his PhD at Oklahoma State University and his interests include alliances,inter-organizational relationships, organizational learning, new product development, B2Bmarketing, e-commerce, and strategy. He has published research in the Industrial MarketingManagement Journal, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Management Decision,Hospital Topics, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education and the Marketing ManagementJournal.

Organizationalidentification

545

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints