Knowledge Sharing in Multinational Virtual Teams

(1)

Business School

KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN MULTINATIONAL VIRTUAL TEAMS

Pro Gradu, Master’s Thesis

Leadership and Intellectual Capital Management,

Elisa Mustonen

Supervisors: Helen Reijonen and Pasi Tuominen

August 18th, 2020

(2)

ABSTRACT

UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND

Faculty

Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies

Department Business School

Author

Elisa Mustonen

Supervisor

Helen Reijonen and Pasi Tuominen

Title

Knowledge Sharing in Multinational Virtual Teams

Major

Service Management

Type of thesis Master’s Thesis

Date 20.8.2020

Pages 99+6

Virtual collaboration has increased significantly in organizations and knowledge is one of the most valuable competitive assets in rapidly transforming environments. Prior research on knowledge sharing in virtual teams is scattered, and this thesis aims to build a holistic view of the phenomenon with a multidisciplinary approach. Different theoretical knowledge management approaches are discussed along with prior findings. An integrated knowledge sharing model is formulated based on previous research and findings of this study.

This Master’s Thesis project investigates the phenomenon of knowledge sharing in multinational virtual teams.

The main purpose is to find out how multinational virtual teams can share knowledge efficiently within teams and across team boundaries. Factors affecting virtual knowledge sharing, impacting challenges and key technological features are explored.

In this qualitative thesis eight knowledgeable and experienced virtual knowledge workers from one multinational corporation are interviewed. Data collected with semi-structured interviews is analyzed abductively, and main findings are reflected on existing literature and previous results from various scholars in the fields of management and information science.

Effective knowledge sharing is found to be supported by structure through shared goals and regular knowledge sharing activities such as virtual meetings. Building a cooperative and open collaboration culture between virtual knowledge workers is found to impact knowledge sharing positively. Online collaboration technologies supporting social interaction with multiple integrated features are found to enhance knowledge sharing. These findings suggest that managers of virtual teams should encourage autonomous knowledge sharing between all collabora- tors, offer interactive tools for the purpose and ensure that knowledge is shared sufficiently with a well-established structured framework as a backbone. Key findings implicate that lack of human interaction in virtual collaboration causes challenges to knowledge sharing. Habitual and cultural differences between individuals and different practices among teams are found to pose challenges.

Findings of this study align with prior research and contribute to the discussion of different knowledge management theories. Results suggest that knowledge sharing is an integral part of technology-mediated collaboration and communication in virtual teams. Collaborative knowledge sharing is done across networks of individuals ad teams. Knowledge sharing is difficult to separate from other dimensions of virtual teamwork as well as from other inter-related knowledge processes. This thesis suggests an integrated knowledge sharing model combining existing theories, which serves as a promising ground for further testing.

Keywords: knowledge sharing, knowledge management, virtual teams, multinational teams, online collab- oration, multinational corporations

(3)

TIIVISTELMÄ

ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO

Tiedekunta

Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta

Yksikkö

Kauppatieteiden laitos

Tekijä

Elisa Mustonen

Ohjaaja

Helen Reijonen ja Pasi Tuominen

Työn nimi

Tiedon jakaminen monikansallisissa virtuaalitiimeissä

Pääaine

Palvelujohtaminen

Työn laji

Pro gradu -tutkielma

Aika 20.8.2020

Sivuja 99+6

Virtuaalinen työskentely on yleistynyt organisaatioissa ja tieto on organisaatioille elintärkeä kilpailutekijä muut- tuvissa toimintaympäristöissä. Aiempi tutkimus tiedon jakamisesta virtuaalitiimeissä on hajautunut useille eri tie- teenaloille. Tämän tutkimuksen tavoitteena on muodostaa yhtenäinen kuva tutkittavasta ilmiöstä. Vaihtoehtoisia tiedon johtamisen teorioita ja aiempia tutkimustuloksia käsitellään laaja-alaisesti monitieteellisellä otteella. Tie- don jakamista tarkastellaan osana laajempaa prosessimallia ja integroitu tiedon jakamisen malli rakennetaan va- littujen vaihtoehtoisten teorioiden pohjalta.

Tämä Pro gradu -tutkielma tarkastelee tiedon jakamista monikansallisissa virtuaalisissa tiimeissä. Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on selvittää, kuinka tietoa voidaan jakaa virtuaalitiimeissä tehokkaasti, mitkä tekijät tiedon jakamiseen vaikuttavat, mitä haasteita siihen liittyy ja millaisia teknologisia edellytyksiä virtuaalisilta työskentelyvälineiltä vaaditaan.

Tutkimus toteutetaan laadullisena haastattelututkimuksena. Puolistrukturoidulla teemahaastattelulla selvitetään erään monikansallisen yrityksen kahdeksan kokeneen tietotyöläisen kokemuksia ja ajatuksia tiedon jakamisesta virtuaalitiimeissä. Aineisto analysoidaan abduktiivisesti ja tuloksia verrataan aiempaan kirjallisuuteen.

Tärkeimmät keinot tehokkaan tiedon jakamisen edistämiseksi virtuaalitiimeissä ovat tulosten pohjalta struktuurin rakentaminen säännöllisen tiedon jakamisen varmistamiseksi, kannustavan organisaatiokulttuurin kehittäminen ja kannustus itsenäiseen tiedon jakamiseen ja sen turvaaminen tehokkailla vuorovaikutusta vahvistavilla ja rikas- tavilla työkaluilla. Luottamuksellinen ja avoin ilmapiiri sekä yhteiset tavoitteet edesauttavat tehokasta tiedon jakamista. Keskeiset löydökset viittaavat suurimpien tiedon jakamisen haasteiden liittyvän virtuaalisen vuorovai- kutuksen rajoitteisiin. Ihmisten väliset kulttuuriset erot ja erot työskentelytavoissa sekä tiimien väliset toiminta- mallien erot muodostavat teknologiavälitteisen kommunikaation ohella haasteita.

Tutkimustulokset ovat linjassa aiempien tutkimusten kanssa. Tulosten pohjalta voidaan väittää, että tiedon jakaminen virtuaalitiimeissä on vahvasti sidoksissa viestintään, vuorovaikutukseen ja yhteistyöhön verkostoissa, ja tiedon jakamisprosessin tarkastelu irrallaan niistä on haastavaa. Tulokset myös osoittavat tiedon jakamisen nivou- tuvan muihin tiedonkulun prosesseihin. Jatkotutkimuksilla voidaan tarkentaa teoreettista ymmärrystä tiedon jakamisesta kansainvälisissä virtuaalisissa tiimeissä tässä työssä ehdotetun integroidun mallin pohjalta.

Avainsanat: tiedon jakaminen, tiedon johtaminen, virtuaalitiimit, monikansalliset tiimit, virtuaalinen työ, monikansalliset korporaatiot

(4)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Quite a research project this has been – a learning journey in many aspects and a step towards new career paths in the field of knowledge management. I would like to thank the participants of this study for sharing their knowledge about virtual work. The value of it has become unex- pectedly high as the world has transitioned into remote work due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Thanking is in place for my supervisors Helen Reijonen and Pasi Tuominen, who knowledge- ably and patiently guided me in the right direction in time of doubt and provided structure for complex thoughts to take an explicit form. I must admit I could not have met the goals of this project alone, which goes for most of the projects in life, be it professional, academic or personal.

This thesis project certainly was a 360-degree experience as it was mostly conducted in the age of a global pandemic, remotely from home with not much in person contact to any of the col- laborators. I was simultaneously working in a virtual team myself, being fully immersed in the research topic on many fronts. I did not foresee the significance of the subject of this thesis when starting the project in October 2019 but did find it increasingly meaningful as the situation around the world quickly evolved, keeping virtual work a staple in the headlines. I sincerely hope that discoveries made provide value for organizations in the midst of a global wave of digital transformation.

Gratefully (and happily when finally writing these last words), Elisa

(5)

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Forewords

In March 2020 coronavirus pandemic shook societies, organizations and individuals on a global scale. Knowledge workers transitioned to working remotely via virtual means. Long-term con- sequences of the sudden and dramatic increase in remote virtual work remain to be seen.

COVID-19 pandemic may reveal whether organizations all over the world are ready to adapt to rapid and unexpected changes in the environment, and whether virtual and remote way of working could be a permanent solution post-crisis (Yost 2020).

1.2 Research Background

“In an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, the one sure source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge” (Nonaka 1991, 69). Knowledge is an essential organizational resource and a complex abstract concept that has its roots in the ancient Greek philosophy (Alavi & Leidner 2001). Developing knowledge management processes is acknowledged to relate to organizational efficiency and competitive advantage (Loon 2019). Knowledge processes of virtual teams impact both individual and organizational learning, and virtual teams have a crucial role in organizational knowledge flows especially in geographically dispersed organizations (Fang, Kwok & Schroeder 2014).

It has become increasingly rare that colleagues and teammates sit around the same table. Geo- graphically dispersed teams collaborate digitally from a distance and through different time zones. (Wahl & Kitchel 2016.) Information technology (IT) has changed organizations and leadership more than any other technology in the past 50 years. IT has altered the way information is collected and processed – ultimately changing how decisions are made. (Avolio &

Kahai 2003.) Online collaboration is a relatively new phenomenon (Wahl & Kitchel 2016), and Cascio and Shurygailo (2003) describe working in virtual workspaces as the modern paradigm of work. Technological innovations of the digital age have enabled collaborating,

(9)

communicating and sharing knowledge across space and time, accompanied by both opportu- nities and challenges (Riemer, Schellhammer & Meinert 2018, 1).

Globalization and the rapid development of information technology have enabled new concepts of management such as e-leadership and virtual teams (Zaccaro & Bader 2003). Many major corporations have been forced to re-think their business structures (Lurey & Raisinghani 2001), and several organizations are shifting their workforce from the physical to the virtual realm (Diptee & Diptee 2013). Fang, Kwok and Schroeder (2014) suggest that studying virtual teams becomes increasingly important as more and more workplaces implement new virtual practices.

1.3 Research Purpose and Questions

Virtual teams and knowledge management are both broadly researched subjects separately but according to Fang, Kwok and Schroeder (2014) research on the knowledge processes of virtual teams is scattered and originates from multiple disciplines from organizational behavior to information science. Fang et al. (2014) highlight a paradox in knowledge processes of virtual teams, as virtual teams are often formed to unite diverse global knowledge sources yet face several knowledge barriers to truly perform efficiently. The objective of this study is to identify challenges multinational virtual teams face when sharing knowledge and suggest potential practical solutions for them.

Knowledge sharing has been found to positively influence virtual team effectiveness through collaboration as a mediating factor, but there has not yet been extensive research on how today’s various digital knowledge sharing practices and tools enhance virtual team effectiveness (Al- sharo, Gregg & Ramirez 2017). New technologies such as social media and online collaboration environments provide novel ways to manage and share knowledge (Panahi 2013). The number of internet-based tools for online collaboration, communication and knowledge sharing has expanded rapidly, and it can be challenging to choose the most suitable one from the wide range of resources (Wahl & Kitchel 2016).

There has not been extensive knowledge sharing studies related to the most recent online collaboration tools, which encourages to examine the potential impact of new technologies for knowledge sharing. Knowledge management and sharing has been linked to collaboration in

(10)

Dignum, Dignum and Mayer’s (2004) work, but connections of online collaboration and virtual team knowledge sharing have been scarcely studied. Avolio, Kahai and Dodge (2001) have found leadership to impact virtual team productivity and Huang, Kahai and Jestice (2010) have found leadership style to impact virtual team collaboration. Identified prior research has been focusing on general collaboration management in virtual teams with limited knowledge management connections. This study investigates how to share knowledge successfully in virtual teams through the flood of digital communication we receive each day via a vast variety of modern online collaboration tools. This thesis aims to provide insights about how members of multinational virtual teams experience various online collaboration tools to impact knowledge sharing. Although information technology and online collaboration tools play a key part in this study, other impacting factors are also investigated to provide more holistic understanding of the phenomenon – especially as there is only a limited amount of recent research about knowledge sharing in multinational virtual teams. Identified conceptual pairings are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Illustration of identified conceptual pairings in previous research

Encouraged by the identified research gaps and the increasing popularity of virtual work, this thesis explores knowledge sharing across multinational virtual teams via online collaboration technologies. In this study, virtual team members are seen as vital agents of knowledge

(11)

distribution – both in intra-team and inter-team contexts (as illustrated in figure 2). The purpose is to discover how knowledge workers in virtual teams use online collaboration tools to exchange knowledge and what the perceived challenges and good practices of digital knowledge sharing are. The main research question is:

• How to share knowledge efficiently in multinational virtual teams?

Figure 2 Illustration of virtual intra-team and inter-team knowledge sharing

This thesis aims to provide a rich description of the phenomenon of knowledge sharing in multinational virtual teams, expand the existing knowledge base and provide a better understanding of the related challenges and impacting factors. Findings of this study could serve as a foundation for further and more extensive studies. One of the main objectives is to provide practical managerial implications on what to consider when developing digital communication and knowledge sharing practices of internationally dispersed virtual teams. Although this research is conducted from the perspective of virtual teams of multinational corporations, it also serves to guide managers of other geographically dispersed or remote teams collaborating in the digitally transforming workplaces.

(12)

Four sub-problems for investigating the main research question are:

• What practices are perceived as efficient in knowledge sharing in virtual teams?

• What factors affect knowledge sharing in virtual teams?

• What are the biggest knowledge sharing challenges in virtual teams?

• What technological features are perceived the most critical in knowledge sharing in virtual teams?

Knowledge management can be broken down into several factors and knowledge processes.

One way to distinguish knowledge processes is to divide them into knowledge creation, storage/retrieval, transfer and application (Alavi and Leidner 2001). This thesis is narrowed down to managing multinational virtual teams’ knowledge sharing (i.e. transfer) via online collaboration tools. Paulin and Suneson (2006) state that blurriness is present around the terms of knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer in the knowledge management literature, and various definitions have been developed by scholars. Knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing are often used synonymously in the knowledge management literature and it makes sense to explore knowledge transfer when studying knowledge sharing and vice versa (Paulin & Sune- son 2006). This thesis emphasizes the term knowledge sharing as it better depicts human action in the process. Both terms are regarded in the literature overview, but to avoid complicating an already complex matter even further, the term sharing is used in place of transfer where appli- cable.

Knowledge sharing is explored from both intra-team and inter-team perspective. The literature overview is built around previous research on knowledge management and investigations of virtual teams. Multi-disciplinary approach is applied, drawing insights from information science, organization science and knowledge management research. Knowledge is at first approached from the process perspective (e.g. Alavi & Leidner 2001) and alternative views such as Personal Knowledge Network (Amine Chatti 2012) and Collaborative Perspective to Knowledge Management (Dignum, Dignum & Meyer 2004) are also discussed and reviewed in contrast to empirical findings. The aim is to evaluate whether existing knowledge management frameworks explain knowledge sharing in the context of multinational virtual teams ap- propriately and if there is a need for new model development.

(13)

1.4 Research Design and Methodology

This study begins with justifying the research problem by identifying gaps in existing research base. Main research problem and sub-problems are defined based on the research gaps. Sub- problems are formulated to support solving the main research problem. The author then famil- iarizes with the research topic by thoroughly investigating existing multidisciplinary academic literature. Underpinnings from this preliminary research stage are documented in chapter two.

Chapter two aims to give the reader an expansive overview of previous research related to central concepts of this thesis: knowledge sharing, virtual teams and online collaboration. As there is limited prior research about knowledge sharing in multinational virtual teams, separate studies about virtual teams and knowledge sharing are explored to formulate a baseline understanding of the connected phenomena. High-level descriptions of staple online collaboration technologies and tools are presented to support understanding of empirical findings. Theoretical framework is integrated into a wider literature overview. Integrative theoretical framework is formulated based on the key findings and presented at the end of chapter two (2.4).

Theoretical knowledge management foundation of this thesis is built on Nonaka’s (1991;1994) knowledge mode framework and Alavi and Leidner’s (2001) knowledge process framework – which has been influenced by Nonaka’s model. Although having some limitations, Alavi and Leidner’s (2001) framework has been widely applied in the information science discipline (Fang et al. 2014), it considers the role of information technology and takes knowledge management from both intra-group and inter-group perspective into consideration. Other scholars’

perceptions of knowledge processes are added to enrich the understanding of knowledge sharing process and its role in organizational learning and creating new knowledge. Personal knowledge network theory (Amine Chatti 2012) and collaboration perspective to knowledge management (Dignum et al. 2004) are presented as alternatives to process-oriented view of knowledge management. Knowledge itself is approached from a holistic perspective inspired by scholars such as Bognar and Bansal (2007).

Methodology choices are explained and justified in chapter three. Based on the explorative objectives of the study and the aim to provide a rich description of the phenomenon studied, qualitative research methods are chosen (e.g. Walle 2015, 9). Case study methodology is

(14)

applied to give context to a complex concept of knowledge sharing (e.g. Flyvberg 2006), and transferable findings are sought through an abductive approach (Valli 2018, 165).

Step-by-step data collection and analysis process is documented in chapter four. Research data is collected with semi-structured theme interviews. When the subject is scarcely researched, and little is known on the subject, interviews can provide valuable insights (Hirsjärvi & Hurme 2008, 35). Marketing holds a strategic role in the knowledge management of multinational corporations (MNCs) (Kiessling, Marino & Richley 2006). Eight knowledgeable marketing experts working in virtual teams of a MNC are interviewed using a semi-structured approach. All interviewees are experienced in international virtual teamwork and they regularly manage and execute projects and tasks in collaboration with other virtual teams. Both virtual team leaders and subordinate virtual team members are interviewed for a broad understanding of diverse perspectives. Possible findings can also provide insights for future research. Data is analyzed using thematic content analysis methods. Qualitative data is analyzed with thematic content analysis. The results of the analysis are reported in chapter five. Empirical findings are discussed and evaluated in chapter six. Theoretical and practical implications are formulated based on comparative analysis between empirical findings and previous research introduced in the literature overview.

1.5 Definitions of Key Concepts

Knowledge

This thesis approaches knowledge from a broad and holistic perspective, and knowledge is perceived as an outcome of any form of learning (Bogner & Bansal 2007). This broad concept can be divided into different sub-types such as tacit, explicit, individual, social, declarative, procedural, causal, conditional, relational and pragmatic knowledge (Alavi & Leidner 2001).

Knowledge Management

Purposeful designing of processes, tools and structures aiming to increase, renew, share, or improve the use of knowledge represented in any of the elements of intellectual capital: human, social or structural (Morey, Maybury & Thuraisingham 2000, 17). A discipline that aims to

(15)

capture the knowledge assets in the heads of organization’s members (Newell, Robertson, Scar- brough and Swan 2009, 24). Systematic management and improvement of processes enabling both individual and collective knowledge resources to be identified, created, stored, shared, and utilized (Serrat 2017, 1058).

Knowledge Sharing

Sharing and transferring* knowledge between individuals, between individual and group and between groups through different channels (e.g. Alavi & Leidner 2001).

*In this study knowledge sharing is preferred over knowledge transfer as the term “sharing”

represents human action and personal involvement in the process better, although original ter- minology of the referred authors is preserved in the theoretical framework.

Knowledge Ecology

Knowledge is viewed as a personal knowledge network which consists of internal and external conceptual levels, theories‐in‐use, people information. These knowledge networks form a larger knowledge ecology – an adapting system converging personal and organizational knowledge.

(Amine Chatti 2012.)

Knowledge Management Tool

Methods and techniques used to support or deliver practical knowledge management, which can be IT systems or human networks such as communities of practice (Serrat 2017, 1059).

Community of Practice

Formal or informal, online or offline networks of people who work in similar fields of expertise or on similar tasks and come together to develop and share their knowledge for personal benefit and the benefit of the organization at large (Serrat 2017, 1059).

Virtual Team

Team members can be geographically dispersed and interaction between them occurs through electronic communication channels (e.g. Cascio & Shurygailo 2003). Dispersed team members work together across space, time, and/or organizational boundaries, linked together by

(16)

technology (Lurey & Raisinghani 2001). Team members execute interdependent tasks and share responsibility for results (De Guinea, Webster & Staples 2012).

Enterprise Collaboration System

System designed to support joint collaboration in organizations (Schubert & Glitsch 2016).

Enterprise Social Network i.e. Enterprise Social Software

A set of technologies that have similar basic features as social network sites but are imple- mented within an organization (Ellison, Gibbs & Weber 2015). Features include for example social profiles, microblogs, chat and activity streams (Schubert & Glitsch 2016). Schwade and Schubert (2017) distinguish enterprise social network from enterprise social software but the two terms are often used synonymously in academic literature.

(17)

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE UNDERPINNINGS

2.1 Knowledge

“Knowledge is power”, Francis Bacon 1597 (Rodrigez Garcia 2001, 109).

Knowledge is a complex concept with roots deeply in the ancient Greek philosophy. It is some- times mixed with the concept of information. (Nonaka 1991; Nonaka 1994.) In philosophy there are multiple debating views of the universal truth and the essence of knowledge (Nonaka 1991;

Nonaka 1994; Alavi & Leidner 2001).

Some scholars define knowledge in its hierarchical relation to data and information. In this hierarchical order, data comes first, followed by information and finally knowledge. These three interrelated concepts are often perceived as the building blocks of information science. The meanings of data, information and knowledge have been much debated, as well as their sequen- tial order. (Zins 2007.) Some scholars view the hierarchical order to be problematic and alternative theories have been developed (Nonaka 1994). Tuomi (1999) argues in his reversed hier- archy model that the idea of data or “raw data” coming first is not possible since it is already influenced by knowledge processes when it has been identified and collected by a person and, in this sense, it is in fact knowledge that comes first, followed by information that eventually becomes data.

According to Nonaka (1994) knowledge is characterized by human actions and beliefs, and it can be described as “justified true belief”, whereas information is a medium for initiating and formalizing knowledge – a flow of messages and meanings that may change knowledge by restructuring or increasing it. Nonaka (1994) defines the difference between knowledge and information to be essentially in the element of human action: “Information is a flow of messages, while knowledge is created and organized by the very flow of information, anchored on the commitment and beliefs of its holder”.

(18)

Alavi and Leidner (2001) argue hierarchical view of knowledge to be problematic and limited.

According to Alavi and Leidner (2001) knowledge is personalized information possessed in the minds of individuals where facts, procedures, interpretations, concepts, judgments, observa- tions and ideas mix. They suggest that knowledge is the result of cognitive processing of information, whereas knowledge results information when presented in an articulated format. Re- sulting knowledge may or may not be accurate, new or useful. (Alavi & Leidner 2001.) Knowledge can be only new to the collective at hand, not necessarily to the whole humanity (Pentland 1995). When knowledge is perceived from the process perspective, knowledge management approach should focus on different processes of the organizational knowledge flow such as sharing and creating knowledge (Alavi & Leidner 2001).

Knowledge can be divided into two different dimensions: explicit and tacit knowledge (Nonaka 1991; Nonaka 1994; Alavi & Leidner 2001). Muthuveloo et al. (2017) estimate that most of the current research has focused on explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge as a competitive advantage and organizational performance enhancer has not received as extensive attention from researchers as explicit (Muthuveloo et al. 2017).

Explicit knowledge is knowledge that can be documented, shared and measured easily (Nonaka 1994; Cao et al. 2012; Panahi 2013). It is articulated and codified and can be communicated through natural language and/or another symbolic format (Alavi & Leidner 2001). For example, it can be information and knowledge collected into an academic record (Cao et al. 2012; Panahi 2013) or a user manual (Alavi & Leidner 2001). Explicit knowledge can also be seen as discrete and digital because of its documentable nature into different sequentially accessible digital for- mats (Nonaka 1994).

Tacit knowledge can be characterized by its personal and practical nature and it is gathered alone or together with others while executing a process and through learning from experience (Cao et al. 2012; Panahi 2013). Tacit knowledge is a continuous process of knowing that is rooted in action, involvement and context such as profession (Nonaka 1991; Nonaka 1994). It includes both cognitive and technical elements (Nonaka 1991; Nonaka 1994). Due to its personal quality, tacit knowledge is difficult to formalize and share (Nonaka 1994; Cao et al. 2012;

Panahi 2013). Tacit knowledge sharing often requires a human contact (Diptee & Diptee 2013).

It can be a challenge to manage tacit knowledge in an organization because it is tied to employ- ees and difficult to assess (Cao et al. 2012; Panahi 2013). Philosopher Michael Polanyi has

(19)

described tacit knowledge as the knowledge of which we know more than we have the ability to tell (Nonaka 1991). Tacit knowledge sharing happens when two or more individuals com- municate with each other and build mutual understanding about an issue in this parallel processing (Nonaka 1994). Tacit knowledge is argued to fade slower than explicit by Diptee &

Diptee (2013).

Muthuveloo et al. (2017) argue tacit knowledge to have a considerable impact on an organization’s performance, and that knowledge should be encouraged to be created, shared and retained by top management for better operational functioning. Alavi and Leidner (2001) criticize common view among research that tacit knowledge is more valuable than explicit. Cao et al. (2012) argue tacit knowledge to be related to virtual team’s engagement to the tasks at hand and overall operational efficiency. Cao et al. (2012) also argue that engagement to the job increases tacit knowledge exchange.

Knowledge can be viewed as a capability to use information to act and make decisions. In this approach, knowledge is seen as valuable strategic intellectual capital made of know-how and competency building. (Alavi & Leidner 2001.) Knowledge as a state of knowing means that the individual has reached a state of understanding through study and experience, and this state is the sum of perceptions, discoveries and learnings (Schubert, Lincke and Schmidt 1998).

Scholars have different perceptions of organizational knowledge. Some of the common perceptions of knowledge among scholars are: knowledge as part of a hierarchical view, knowledge as a storable object that can be accessed and manipulated, knowledge as a justified true belief, knowledge as a process, knowledge as a state of mind or state of knowing and knowledge as a capability. Knowledge management strategies should be aligned with the chosen perception of knowledge (Alavi & Leidner 2001).

Narrow concepts of any phenomenon can lower the likelihood of new findings (Huber 1991).

This thesis takes a holistic approach to knowledge sharing and regards both explicit and tacit forms of knowledge without taking part in the debate of what knowledge is on a philosophical level. The personal dimension of knowledge is considered (e.g. Nonaka 1994; Alavi & Leidner 2001; Cao et al. 2012; Panahi 2013). This thesis approaches knowledge as explicit or tacit knowledge that is an outcome of learning. This approach follows Bogner and Bansal’s (2007) view of a broader term of knowledge that indicates an outcome of any form of learning. This

(20)

broad concept covers different sub-types such as tacit, explicit, individual, social, declarative, procedural, causal, conditional, relational and pragmatic knowledge (Alavi & Leidner 2001).

2.2 Knowledge Sharing

2.2.1 Knowledge Management

Developing knowledge management processes has been found to improve organizational efficiency and competitive advantage (Loon 2019), and multitude of knowledge management approaches have emerged (Dignum, Dignum & Meyer 2004). Knowledge management as a term has been used to describe several practices from organizational learning to database management (Ruggles 1998). Serrat (2017, 1058) defines knowledge management as systematic management and improvement of processes enabling both individual and collective knowledge resources to be identified, created, stored, shared, and utilized. Knowledge management can also be viewed as a practical fusion of information management and organizational learning (Serrat 2017, 1058).

Knowledge management research became popular in the 1990s when the shift to “Information Age” became prominent in organizations, and the value of knowledge assets was realized (New- ell, Robertson, Scarbrough & Swan 2009, 23). Knowledge-based view of the firm is a discipline established in the strategic management literature. Behind knowledge-based view is the idea that when serving customers, the firm’s tangible resources are applied and combined with knowledge of the organization to create value on different levels. (Bogner & Bansal 2007; Alavi

& Leidner 2001.) Knowledge-based view indicates that intangible knowledge-based resources have stronger impact on a firm’s performance success versus tangible resources (Bogner &

Bansal 2007). Several knowledge-based views have been developed by scholars, ranging from resource-based to dynamic knowledge-based theories of the firm (Spender 1996; Bogner &

Bansal 2007).

Knowledge is a dynamic and challenging concept to manage, yet leveraging it is vital for the organization (Ruggles 1998). Nonaka (1991) states that knowledge management is the key to an organization’s ability to respond to customers fast, create new markets, develop new products quickly and dominate emerging technologies. Knowledge management’s impact has been

(21)

recognized and it will be standardized by International Standards Organization (ISO) (Loon 2019).

2.2.2 Knowledge Sharing

There is a lot of blur around terms knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer and various definitions have been developed in the knowledge management literature – some of which are overlapping and used synonymously (Paulin & Suneson 2006). In this sense, it is reasonable to take both terms into account. Although knowledge transfer and sharing have been defined in various ways, common characteristics prevail. In this study knowledge sharing is preferred as it depicts this study’s main interest i.e. human action in the process whereas transfer considers both sender and recipient more equally.

Knowledge sharing is a complex and important process in organizational knowledge management (Huber 1991; Alavi & Leidner 2001) and organizational knowledge co-creation process (Nonaka 1994). Taking advantage of it is vital in the knowledge-based economy (Morey et al.

2000). Knowledge sharing improves organizational efficiency (Ruggles 1998) and is also a critical behavior of humans (Morey, Maybury and Thuraisingham 2000). Knowledge workers and specialists have a crucial role in professional knowledge sharing within and across modern organizations, where inter-functional knowledge sharing enhances decision making across units and aligns individuals and units to reach a common goal (Eppler 2007).

Alavi and Leidner (2001) and Pentland (1995) define knowledge transfer or distribution as the transferring of knowledge to where it is needed – be it locations or individuals. Knowledge transfer is characterized by the recipients learning process: when transferring knowledge, the shared knowledge is being re-created in the mind of the recipient (Alavi & Leidner 2001).

Knowledge transfer can happen in real time or have a delayed impact, in other words synchro- nously or asynchronously (Eppler 2007). For example, when sending an email to share knowledge, the transfer can happen in delay as the recipient may read the message after an unspecified period of time. Knowledge transfer is driven by communication processes and information flows (Alavi & Leidner 2001). Morey et al. (2000) encourage organizations to approach managing knowledge sharing in a holistic and integrated way. Dignum et al. (2004)

(22)

describe knowledge as part of personal property and identity, thus people want to decide whether to share it and when based on their personal interests.

When knowledge is being shared through some form of communication, it does not only matter what is being shared but also how it is being shared (Eppler 2007), and it is important to share knowledge in an understandable format (Alavi & Leidner 2001). Success of the knowledge transfer from one member to others is also dependent of the recipient’s capacity to process the shared knowledge. The personal aspect of knowledge should be considered when developing knowledge sharing processes. An individual’s reflection and enlightenment are crucial factors when sharing and creating knowledge. Large amounts of information do not necessarily provide any value. Only knowledge that is beneficial to the receiver should be shared, otherwise it will not be processed in the mind of the individual. (Alavi & Leidner 2001.) Ruggles (1998) also points out that transferring ideas across the organization brings no value if it is outdated and irrelevant. Besides improving knowledge transfer processes in an organization, the focus should also be in generating new knowledge (Ruggles 1998).

Tuomi (1999) suggests that the receiver of knowledge must have a sufficient base of tacit knowledge to be able to interpret and make sense of the knowledge that is being shared. Tuomi (1999) further explains that both the knowledge sender and the receiver must have overlapping meaning structure for the knowledge to be successfully transferred. In other words, there must be a shared contextual knowledge base for sender and receiver of knowledge to be able to understand each other’s knowledge. Nonaka (1994) on the other hand describes tacit knowledge sharing between two or more parties as a process of building mutual understanding. The larger the common knowledge base between sender and receiver have, the less need to share additional contextual information when transferring knowledge (Alavi & Leidner 2001). Simonin (1999) claims tacitness of the knowledge to be the central factor of knowledge transferability. Accord- ing to Lin (2007) organizational commitment and trust in co-workers affect tacit knowledge sharing.

Knowledge sharing in multinational organizations is a complex process in which negotiating meaning among diverse individuals and groups takes place (Ellison, Gibbs & Weber 2015).

Gupta and Govindarajan (2000) study knowledge flows within MNCs and claim that knowledge transfer in such organizations occurs on multiple levels and between multiple dimensions: among business units, between joint business units and on a systematic level between

(23)

entire network of units. They encourage fellow researchers to consider five major elements when examining knowledge transfer flows: source’s knowledge value, source’s motivational disposition of sharing the knowledge it possesses, quality and cost of transfer channel, receiver’s motivational disposition towards accepting the knowledge and receiver’s capacity to comprehend and absorb the knowledge. (Gupta & Govindarajan 2000.)

Peltola (2014) states in his doctoral thesis that organizational transparency and internal knowledge sharing helps unite members to solve problems. Dignum et al. (2004) suggest organizations to provide autonomy and support informal ways of knowledge sharing as the main assets for collective problem solving instead of focusing heavily on formal structures as people tend to develop their own ways of doing things.

Sharing lessons learned is one form of knowledge sharing. Serrat (2017, 1059) defines lessons learned as communicating knowledge stemming from experience – e.g. what went well, what did not, suggestions for future improvement – through methods such as storytelling and de- briefing. Lessons learned can also be summarized in databases. (Serrat 2017, 1059.)

2.2.3 Knowledge Process Frameworks

Different knowledge process frameworks have been developed to provide structure and understanding to the fundamental knowledge processes in the organizational learning and creation of new knowledge. Knowledge sharing – or knowledge transfer or distribution – has an essential role in these frameworks. Alavi & Leidner (2001) claim knowledge sharing to be an important process supporting all other knowledge processes and taking place on multiple levels of groups and individuals.

Huber’s (1991) typology of knowledge processes contributing to organizational learning con- sist of knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory. Pentland (1995) critiques Huber’s approach for not considering social aspects of knowledge processes sufficiently. Pentland’s (1995) alternative organizational knowledge framework consists of five processes each social by nature: construction, organizing, storing, distributing and applying knowledge.

(24)

Ruggles (1998) divides knowledge management activities under eight categories: generating new knowledge, accessing external knowledge, using accessible knowledge in decision making, embedding knowledge in processes, products, and/or services, representing knowledge in documents, databases, and software, facilitating knowledge growth through culture and incen- tives, transferring existing knowledge into other parts of the organization and measuring the value of knowledge assets and/or impact of knowledge management. Alsharo et al. (2017) break knowledge processes into knowledge generation, knowledge sharing, knowledge accumulation, knowledge adoption and knowledge diffusion.

Alavi & Leidner (2001) view organizations as knowledge systems where knowledge processes take place at any time in any place, making knowledge management an integral part of the organization instead of a separate independent practice. Their framework aims to explain the dynamic and continuous set of knowledge processes among individuals, groups and physical structures. Four knowledge processes are distinguished: creation, storage/retrieval, sharing and application of knowledge. (Alavi & Leidner 2001.) Alavi & Leidner’s (2001) knowledge process framework is influenced by Nonaka’s work and builds on Nonaka’s (1991) organizational knowledge creation modes.

Although having some limitations, Alavi and Leidner’s (2001) framework has been widely applied in the information science discipline (Fang et al. 2014). This thesis uses Alavi and Leidner’s (2001) knowledge process framework as the main theoretical model to explain knowledge sharing process in organizations. This approach is chosen based on the framework’s wide scientific application and academic validity. Alavi and Leidner’s (2001) model also regards the role of information technology (IT) in knowledge management which connects to the main research problem of this study. Another advantage is that it considers knowledge management from both intra-group and inter-group perspective, which also reflects this study’s objectives.

In Alavi and Leidner’s (2001) model knowledge creation is viewed similar to Pentland’s (1995).

According to Pentland (1995) there are many ways an organization can construct knowledge and eventually integrate it into its daily practices, and knowledge creation in a broad view is seen as developing new or replacing old knowledge within the organization. Nonaka (1991) defines new knowledge creation as a spiraling process which starts from an individual and where an individual’s personal knowledge transforms into organizational knowledge that

(25)

provides value to the entire organization. Knowledge is created on social and collective levels and individually through cognitive processes (Nonaka 1994; Alavi and Leidner 2001).

Knowledge storage/retrieval means gathering knowledge, then coding and encoding it to make it obtainable and understandable (Alavi & Leidner). Knowledge sharing is the transferring of knowledge to where it is needed – be it locations or individuals (Alavi & Leidner 2001; Pent- land 1995). Knowledge application means applying knowledge to solve problems (Alavi &

Leidner 2001).

Figure 3 Knowledge creation modes (reproduction of Alavi & Leidner 2001)

Nonaka (1991) defines the process of knowledge creation in an organization as “the spiral of knowledge” that is constructed of four fundamental patterns: socialization, articulation, combination and internalization of knowledge. Nonaka’s (1991) model has been influential in several other scholars’ works. In Nonaka’s (1991) knowledge mode framework, knowledge creation modes represent social collaborative processes and individual cognitive processes that are ac- tive in developing new knowledge and sharing it to solve problems. Alavi and Leidner (2001) use Nonaka’s (1994) knowledge mode model as a foundation for their knowledge process framework.

(26)

Alavi and Leidner (2001) describe the four knowledge creation modes to be intertwined and interdependent. The complex combination of different processes is illustrated in figure 2, in which each arrow represents a form of knowledge creation. They explain externalization mode (A) to be tacit knowledge conversion to explicit knowledge. Internalization mode (B) means creating tacit knowledge from explicit knowledge. Socialization mode (C) means conversing tacit knowledge into new tacit knowledge among socially interactive individuals. Combination mode (D) is creating new explicit knowledge by combining and synthetizing different knowledge sources, such as collecting knowledge through a survey. (Alavi & Leidner 2001.)

Figure 4 Knowledge sharing among individuals in a team (reproduction of Alavi &

Leidner 2001)

Figure 3 illustrates multi-level knowledge sharing among individuals in a team. Knowledge modes are developed to flow two ways, which is illustrated by two-way arrows. Knowledge application process (D), learning / new knowledge creation process (E), explicit knowledge sharing (F) and tacit knowledge sharing (G) between an individual and group are added. Se- mantic and episodic group memory dimensions are also included into the equation. Individual learning can occur from both semantic and episodic memory sources of a group. (Alavi &

Leidner 2001.)

(27)

Figure 5 Knowledge sharing among individuals in a group (reproduction from Alavi &

Leidner 2001)

Figure 4 further illustrates knowledge sharing between individuals and multiple teams. Differ- ent definitions of semantic and episodic memory have been formulated. The illustration demon- strates knowledge process triggering and flow between individuals. For example, individual A sharing knowledge to individual B may trigger individual B to apply received knowledge.

Knowledge application results may further be stored into group’s episodic memory (I). Indi- vidual B might also store knowledge into group’s shared digital storage space (H). Successful results from knowledge application may be shared further by sharing these “best practices” with other groups (J). (Alavi & Leidner 2001.)

(28)

In Alavi and Leidner’s model (2001) group semantic memory refers to explicit knowledge that is for example stored in organizational archives, while episodic memory is described to be contextual and situational by nature. Episodic memory plays a vital role in enabling individual learning from group’s semantic memory (Alavi & Leidner 2001). In comparison, Wang, Tan

& Teow (2017) describe group semantic memory as the memory that enables abstraction of useful knowledge learned from past experiences. Xue (2018, 544) defines episodic memory as

“the ability to recall and recognize previously encountered objects, people, and events, and to discriminate them from those that were not experienced”. Memory can have positive or negative impact on organizational performance (Alavi & Leidner 2001), for example through repli- cating successful “best practices”, or on the other hand through preserving poorly performing practices. Alavi and Leidner (2001) also emphasize the role of IT in enabling both organizational semantic and episodic memory to eventually improve performance of individuals and teams – for example through reduction of lag times and acceleration of knowledge sharing through time and space. Hanvanich, Simakumar and Hult (2006) conclude that the role of organizational memory is emphasized in stable conditions, whereas organizational learning becomes more crucial in turbulent environmental conditions.

2.2.4 Collaboration Perspective and Personal Knowledge Networks

Amine Chatti (2012) presents an alternative view to the process-oriented view of knowledge management. Knowledge is viewed as a personal network which consists of internal and external conceptual levels, theories‐in‐use, tacit knowledge nodes (people) and explicit knowledge nodes (information). These knowledge networks form a larger knowledge ecology – an adapting system converging personal and organizational knowledge. By building a sustainable and agile autonomous learning environment for its knowledge workers, a corporation puts the knowledge worker at the center. In practice this can be done by encouraging learning experiences across the organization and by providing an open environment that supports networking, testing theories and experimenting through trial-and-error. (Amine Chatti 2012.)

Dignum, Dignum and Meyer (2004) emphasize that although technology has a role in knowledge management, it is first and foremost a management science. In their view information technology (IT) should be viewed as an enabler and supporter of human interaction and

(29)

knowledge sharing, aligning with Alavi and Leidner’s view (2001). According to Dignum et al.

(2004) a shift of direction from knowledge process management to collaboration management underlines strengthening collaboration between people, connecting people’s goals and practices in a way that formal workflow processes are unable to.

Collaboration perspective puts communities of practice into the center, uniting experts and their knowledge to solve problems. Communities of practice do not necessarily have to be identified or official groups of people, but they share a need and desire to access each other’s knowledge.

(Dignum et al. 2004.)

2.3 Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Teams

2.3.1 Multinational Virtual Teams

Advancements in information technology (IT) and Internet have created a new context for leadership and teamwork (Avolio, Kahai, & Dodge 2001). Globalization of the markets and internal changes such as mergers and acquisitions or corporate layoffs call for new organizational structures (Lurey & Raisinghani 2001), and virtual teams have become an essential form of teamwork and collaboration (De Guinea, Webster & Staples 2012; Fang, Kwok & Schroeder 2014).

Virtual team members meet each other physically rarely, if ever (Lurey & Raisinghani 2001;

Cascio & Shurygailo 2003). Cascio and Shurygailo (2003) describe virtual teams as the modern paradigm of work, bringing together people with desirable skills to collaborate regardless of their physical locations.

Powell et al. (2004) define virtual teams as a modern organizational form that enables signifi- cant flexibility and agility to create dynamic organizational networks. Virtual team members execute interdependent tasks and share responsibility for results (De Guinea et al. 2012). Team- based organizations enable better problem solving and decision making, productivity, enhanced creativity and innovation and higher quality service (Lurey & Raisinghani 2001). Virtual teams have a knowledge advantage due to their combined pool of knowledge resources (Mesmer- Magnus & Dechurch 2009).

(30)

It has become increasingly rare that colleagues and teammates sit around the same table (Cascio

& Shurygailo 2003; Wahl & Kitchel 2016). Virtual teams are a solution for globally dispersed organizations to beat the challenges related to time, geography and communication (Ferreira, Lima & Da Costa 2012). Geographically dispersed teams collaborate and build relationships digitally from a distance. This could mean collaboration through different nations, cultures and time zones. (Cascio & Shurygailo 2003; Wahl & Kitchel 2016.).

According to Wahl and Kitchel (2016) the Social Information Processing theory, which was developed by Joseph Walther in 1992, indicates that personal relationships can develop virtually without face-to-face interaction. Wahl and Kitchel (2016) state that virtual relationship forming may be slower but can have similar qualities as traditional face to face relationships.

Processes and structures for technology-based communication and information exchange are needed to strengthen trust and relationships building in virtual teams (Lurey & Raisinghani 2001). When team members work together for a long time, they build relationships and knowledge about each other, and the understanding of communication via different digital channels also grows among them, decreasing barriers and misunderstandings (De Guinea et al.

2012). Performance of virtual teamwork versus traditional face-to-face collaboration has been under evaluation in Galegher and Kraut’s (1994) research, which indicates that complex work such as planning is more difficult to conduct through digital channels.

There are multiple definitions for evaluating team virtuality in the literature, and dimensions vary from geographical distribution to level of virtual media utilization (Kirkman & Mathieu 2005; Mesmer-Magnus, DeChurch, Jimenez-Rodriguez, Wildman & Shuffler 2011). Some- times virtually collaborating teams use virtual tools in their communication quite similarly as more traditional co-located ones and co-location does not necessarily exclude high levels of virtuality, thus more holistic definitions are needed (Kirkman & Mathieu 2005; Mesmer-Mag- nus et al. 2011). Kirkman and Mathieu (2005) suggest taking three virtuality dimensions into account when evaluating team virtualness: team’s extent of reliance on virtual tools, their in- formational value and synchronicity afforded by the tools. Extent of reliance on virtual tools can be described as “the extent to which team members use virtual tools to coordinate and execute team processes” (Kirkman & Mathieu 2005, 702).

(31)

According to De Guinea et al. (2012), the performance impact of virtualness of a team varies based on the duration of the time the team works together. Zaccaro and Bader (2003) have criticized the term “virtual team” because it contains an association of unreality, as if these teams do not really exist in the real world

2.3.2 Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Teams

Global virtual teams allow organizations to procure knowledge and share best practices across the globe utilizing information technology (IT) (Pinjani & Palvia 2013). Virtual teams have a key role as border crossing and barrier breaking knowledge activists that continuously enhance knowledge sharing in multinational corporations (Kauppila, Rajala & Jyrämä 2011). Much of the research surrounding virtual teams has focused on trust, identity, conflict and group cohe- siveness (Martins, Gilson & Maynard 2004). According to Fang, Kwok and Schroeder (2014), research on the knowledge processes of virtual teams is scattered, ranging from information science to organizational behaviour studies, which makes it challenging to identify what is already known.

Kauppila, Rajala and Jyrämä (2011) claim that virtual teams pose a potential solution for knowledge sharing in today’s geographically dispersed MNCs. Complex decision-making tasks are appointed more and more to knowledge-based teams rather than individuals due to the benefits of expanded information pool multiple sources provide (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch 2009). Information sharing in teams has been found to positively affect team performance (Mes- mer-Magnus & DeChurch 2009). According to Alsharo, Gregg and Ramirez (2017) the role of knowledge management in virtual teams has been recognized from both team effectiveness and management perspective. Knowledge sharing has been found to positively influence virtual team effectiveness through collaboration as a mediating factor (Alsharo et al. 2017).

Virtual team leadership is leading through knowledge – harnessing the knowledge of the team members (Kay 2000, 222). Lurey and Raisinghani (2001) claim that even the best designed team-based organizations may fail to reach objectives when there is insufficient access to information. Exceptional problem solving and decision making requires team members to integrate relevant, unique and diverse information effectively (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch 2009). Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch (2009) highlight the performance enhancing role of

(32)

sharing unique information to other team members, further expanding team’s collectively available knowledge stock.

IT has a critical role in knowledge management, and it can be applied in several ways to enhance organizational knowledge processes – for example to knowledge sharing among virtual teams (Pentland 1995; Alavi & Leidner 2001; Pinjani & Palvia 2013). The role of IT in knowledge sharing is to enable knowledge sources to create wider and deeper flow of knowledge in the organization by linking the knowledge sources together. IT can widen the scope of knowledge sharing interactions in the organization and thus increase the likelihood of coming into new ideas and conclusions. This expanded knowledge can enable individuals to make better decisions versus what they might come up with on their own. (Alavi & Leidner 2001.)

Ruggles (1998) points out that IT cannot alone bring down the knowledge barriers in knowledge sharing, and management should not overlook the role of people in the process. Lurey and Raisinghani (2001) suggest managers to pay special attention to connectivity between team members and enabling structures and communication patterns for relation forming. According to Kauppila et al. (2011) enhancing and developing existing knowledge structures also provides benefits to establishing virtual teams.

Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch (2009) imply that organizations should enhance information sharing in teams by structuring team discussions and promoting a cooperative team climate.

Structured discussions have been linked to more efficient information retrieval. Encouraging teams to use their possessed knowledge and skills to solve problems leads to increased knowledge search and integration. Co-operative team spirit encourages better information resource utilization. (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch 2009.) Kauppila et. al (2011) also highlight the importance of social ties and the impact of networking to organization-wide knowledge sharing and organizational learning.

One challenge with knowledge sharing is that virtual team members may not see the value of sharing knowledge – for example seeing it put into use – and thus may not prioritize knowledge sharing in their daily activities (Kauppila et a. 2011). Cao et al. (2012) suggest a common goal to be defined to encourage knowledge exchange between virtual teams. Shared purpose is also found to improve overall virtual team effectiveness (Lurey & Raisinghani 2001). According to Kauppila et al. (2011) intangible rewards such as recognition can encourage knowledge sharing

(33)

in virtual teams, especially when the individual has a key role in organizational knowledge sharing.

The role of virtuality on team’s information sharing has been studied by Mesmer-Magnus et al.

(2011). Their meta-analysis indicates that virtuality improves unique information sharing but has a negative impact on openness of information sharing. Face-to-face team performance is more likely to be affected by unique information sharing than open information sharing, while open information sharing has more impact on virtual team performance. They also state that low levels of virtuality has a positive impact on information sharing, whereas high levels of virtuality does the opposite. (Mesmer-Magnus et al. 2011.)

A paradox is associated to virtual teams. According to Fang et al. (2014) knowledge processes are critical aspect of virtual teams, and virtual teams are often formed to integrate dispersed knowledge regardless of geographical and physical barriers. Although potential benefits are clear, digital collaboration has been found to hinder knowledge processes, and virtual teams have more challenges to leverage their collective knowledge compared to traditional teams.

Virtual team members need to identify and manage complex knowledge processes to enable and maintain efficient knowledge exchange. (Fang et al. 2014.)

Pinjani and Palvia (2013) suggest that when developing virtual team-based organization, people, processes and technology dimensions must be considered. Focusing only on increasing available technologies and tools can lead into inefficient use of resources (Lurey & Raisinghani 2001).

Virtual teamwork may be challenging when there is limited – if any – face-to-face communication (Lurey & Raisinghani 2001). Ferreira et al. (2012) find that the lack of communication in virtual teams can have a negative impact on reaching goals. They also conclude that when team members are not communicating in their native language, there is a danger of misunderstandings (Ferreira et al. 2012).

According to Pinjani and Palvia (2013) globally dispersed virtual teams may find performance barriers when cultures collide. Cultural distance has also been found to hinder knowledge sharing in virtual teams (Kauppila et al. 2011). Other barriers to knowledge sharing in virtual teams include geographical and functional differences, perceiving knowledge possession as power,

(34)

relying on only selected few individual’s knowledge and ignoring tacit knowledge dimension (Kauppila, Rajala & Jyrämä 2011).

Multi-cultural teams require special attention to potential differences regarding language and culture, technology implementation, trust and common understanding among team members – all found to affect virtual team performance (Pinjani & Palvia 2013). According to Kauppila et al. (2011) early face-to-face meetings and training, seeing the individual benefits, having shared understanding of the team’s role, accountability and trusting environment have positive impact on knowledge sharing in multinational virtual teams.

Alavi & Leidner (2001) highlight the enabling role of technology in explicating and storing tacit knowledge. New technologies such as social networking applications and enterprise social networks can provide novel ways to share knowledge (Ellison, Gibbs and Weber 2015). Results of Kauppila et al. (2011) imply that social interactivity and visual presence in online collaboration environments enhance knowledge sharing in virtual teams.

Diptee and Diptee (2013) study how the dynamics of tacit knowledge acquisition in virtual teams change with the use of social networking applications and their enabling information technologies. They generate a Tacit Knowledge Acquisition Model that aspires to explain the acquisition of tacit knowledge in virtual teams. According to their model tacit knowledge acquisition takes place between trusted informants via a finite coding process – it does not simply flow from one individual to another. Trust between individuals and the perceived competency of a virtual expert are essential for the results of tacit knowledge acquisition. (Diptee & Diptee 2013.)

2.3.3 Online Collaboration Tools in Virtual Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge management tools can be described as “methods and techniques that are used to support or deliver practical knowledge management”. These tools can be information technology (IT) systems or human networks such as communities of practice. Communities of practice are formal or informal, online or offline networks of people who work in similar fields of expertise or on similar tasks and come together to develop and share their knowledge for personal benefit and the benefit of the organization at large. (Serrat 2017, 1059.)

Knowledge Sharing in Multinational Virtual Teams