Managing from the comfort of your own home – a dream come true or an unproductive nightmare? : A single case study exploring how managers’ perceived team productivity has changed during COVID-19

(1)

Managing from the comfort of

your own home – a dream come

true or an unproductive

nightmare?

MASTER THESIS WITHIN: Business Administration NUMBER OF CREDITS: 30 ECTS

PROGRAMME OF STUDY: Civilekonom AUTHOR: Josefin Arnoldsson & Hanna Malak TUTOR: Johan Karlsson

JÖNKÖPING May 2021

A single case study exploring how managers’ perceived

team productivity has changed during COVID-19

(2)

i

Abstract

This study explores how managers perceive the change in their teams’ productivity, as a result of moving from an office-based workspace to a virtual workspace. In the circumstances of the global COVID-19 pandemic, and its resulting restrictions and recommendations, there has been a mass relocation to working virtually from home. To establish if there has been any perceived change in employee productivity, several different factors such as communication, team unity, and trust were compared during two different time-points, before the start of the pandemic and 16 months into the pandemic. This is a hybrid study that makes use of both quantitative and qualitative properties, by first establishing a base of data through a survey, the initial observations were then explored further and to greater insight by interviewing a sample of the managers who took part in the survey.

The findings of the study suggest that the pandemic reflects an overall negative outcome on team productivity as a result of working virtually. The most affected team factors include communication, conflict resolution, and planning. There are however other effects to factors such as team unity and trust that may bear relational consequences. Ultimately, the findings of the current study indicate a generally negative effect on team productivity.

(3)

ii

Acknowledgments

There are several people we would like to thank for their help, support, and time throughout the thesis writing process. Their support has helped guide us and their contributions have provided valuable input and knowledge which have helped improve the quality of the thesis.

First and foremost, we would like to thank our thesis supervisor Johan Karlsson. His continuous feedback, guidance, and support have provided great value and knowledge during the entire thesis-writing process which has been invaluable.

Secondly, we would like to extend our thanks to the students who have read and provided us with feedback along the writing process. The feedback helped us gain new insights and thoughts on how to proceed with the writing.

Thirdly, a big thank you to the company, and especially to our handlers and all the participants of the study. Without them and the insight which they provided, the analysis and findings of the paper would not have been possible. Truly, a big thank you for your participation, time, and valuable contributions.

Special thanks are also granted to our professor Adele Berndt and statistician Frida Wahlström. For Adele’s early guidance from the start of the paper up to the end, and for Frida’s incredibly helpful feedback on the survey structure. Their help has been incredibly appreciated and is well reflected on the outcomes of this paper.

Finally, we would like to thank our family and friends for their continuous support and interest in our paper throughout the many months of the thesis writing process. Even though we have seen some of you less than we would prefer, and some of you technically could not leave our sides due to COVID-19 recommendations, nonetheless, we will always be grateful (no matter the physical proximity).

Thank you all!

(4)

iii

4.2.1 Survey Design... 16 4.2.2 Interview Structure ... 17 4.3 Case Selection ... 18 4.4 Data Collection ... 19 4.5 Data Analysis ... 19 4.6 Ethical Considerations ... 20 4.7 Trustworthiness ... 21 5. Findings ... 23 5.1 Quantitative Findings ... 23 5.2 Qualitative Findings ... 27 5.2.1 Communication ... 27 5.2.1.1 Casual Communication ... 27 5.2.1.2 Planned Communication ... 28 5.2.1.3 Clear Communication ... 29 5.2.1.4 Lack of Communication ... 30 5.2.2 Trust ... 31 5.2.2.1 Responsibility ... 31

(5)

iv

5.2.2.2 Support ... 32

5.2.2.3 Manager-Employee Relationship ... 33

5.2.3 Team Unity ... 34

5.2.3.1 Loss of Team Activities ... 34

5.2.3.2 Team Bonding... 34 5.2.4 Conflict Resolution ... 35 5.2.4.1 Conflict Management ... 35 5.2.4.2 Escalating Conflict ... 36 5.2.5 Planning ... 37 5.2.5.1 Team Goals ... 37 5.2.5.2 International Cooperation ... 37 5.2.6 Adaptability ... 38 5.2.6.1 Workspace ... 38 5.2.6.2 Technology ... 38 5.2.6.3 Productivity ... 39 5.2.6.4 Process Development ... 40 6. Analysis ... 41 6.1 Communication ... 41 6.1.1 Casual Communication... 41 6.1.2 Planned Communication... 41 6.1.3 Clear Communication ... 42 6.1.4 Lack of Communication ... 43

6.1.5 Communication Analysis Summary ... 44

6.2 Trust ... 44

6.2.1 Responsibility ... 44

6.2.2 Support... 45

6.2.3 Manager-Employee Relationship ... 45

6.2.4 Trust Analysis Summary ... 45

6.3 Team Unity ... 46

6.3.1 Loss of Team Activities ... 46

6.3.2 Team Bonding ... 46

6.3.3 Team Unity Analysis Summary ... 47

6.4 Conflict Resolution ... 47

6.4.1 Conflict Management ... 47

6.4.2 Escalating Conflict ... 48

6.4.3 Conflict Resolution Analysis Summary ... 48

6.5 Planning ... 48

6.5.1 Team Goals ... 48

6.5.2 International Cooperation ... 49

6.5.3 Planning Analysis Summary ... 49

6.6 Adaptability ... 49

6.6.1 Workspace ... 49

6.6.2 Technology ... 50

6.6.3 Productivity ... 50

6.6.4 Process Development ... 51

6.6.5 Adaptability Analysis Summary ... 51

(6)

v 7.1 Concluding Discussion ... 52 7.2 Managerial Implications ... 54 7.3 Limitations ... 55 7.4 Future Research ... 55 References ... 57 Appendix A Model ... 62

Appendix B Layout of Survey ... 63

Appendix C Survey Results ... 65

Appendix D Interview Questionnaire ... 68

Appendix E Coding ... 70

Figures

Figure 1 Adapted model from Bosch-Sijtsema et al. (2009). Enabling and hindering factors of virtual team productivity... 14

Figure 2 Size, Figure 3 Cultural Diversity ... 23

Figure 4 Technological Resources, Figure 5 Technological Expertise ... 24

Figure 6 Planning ... 24

Figure 7 Conflict Resolution ... 25

Figure 8 Communication ... 26

Figure 9 Communication and Productivity ... 26

Figure 10 Model by Bosch-Sijtsema et al. (2009) ... 62

Figure 11 Trust... 65

Figure 12 Trust and Productivity ... 65

Figure 13 Team Unity ... 66

Figure 14 Team Unity and Productivity ... 66

(7)

1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen many workers go from office-based work, close contact with coworkers, managers, and clients, to working from home (Carillo et al., 2021). In many cases this change has not been an option for the workers, it has rather been forced upon them (Fogarty et al., 2020). The most recent statistics from Statistics Sweden show that at least one-third of Swedish workers work from home at least one day every week (Statistics Sweden, 2020). In contrast, back in 2015 around 24 percent of Swedish workers worked from home for a couple of hours and only 4 percent up to two days per week (Eurofound, 2017). Recent studies suggest that the current pandemic will influence future working life and that we will probably experience a hybrid-work model, shared between the office and the virtual workspace (Fogarty et al., 2020). Given that working from home may continue after the pandemic has ended, makes it important to understand how employees’ productivity is affected as the level of their productivity ultimately affects the organization as a whole. Measuring productivity is a central way for organizations to compare themselves and stay competitive in the market (Choi & Oh, 2020), as well as a means for accruing revenue and profits (Lawrence et al., 2006). Past studies and research all credit a plethora of factors for the disruption (or improvement) of employee productivity imposed by virtual management, i.e., managing employees when there is a physical distance. One of these factors is the quality of the relationship between manager and employee, which is central for facilitating business performance, as higher relational quality has been shown to lead to better work performance of the employee (Golden & Veiga, 2008; Neufeld & Fang, 2005). However, some other factors that are contributing to decreasing employee outcomes as a result of virtual management, concern aspects such as professional isolation (Golden et al., 2008; van der Lippe & Lippényi, 2020), which in a similar study instead showed to increase performance as extensive face-to-face interaction appeared to distract from work tasks (Bloom et al., 2015). Furthermore, there are also factors such as team trust that appear to showcase contradicting findings as well, such as Breuer et al. (2016) who found that trust in virtual teams has a direct positive impact on team performance, whereas the findings of Alsharo et al. (2017) showed that there was no direct effect on a virtual team’s productivity due to the level of trust alone.

Despite the different and sometimes contrasting results of the past research, there is one conclusion that most of these studies do affirm, namely that employee productivity is likely to be affected when management is moved to a virtual space. Given the contrasting findings of the literature, as well as the ongoing technological shift and a new crisis that is cause for a mass virtual relocation of teams, it is imperative that the matter is investigated further.

(8)

2

1.2 Problem

Based on polarizing results of prior studies, it is difficult to know as a manager what to focus their attention on when faced with a situation such as COVID-19 where the workplace had to be moved out of the office and into the homes of the employees. Do they focus their attention on making sure communication still maintains the same level of quality or do they put more effort into attempting to supply their team with the best technical support and education?

Additionally, COVID-19 called for a rapid and necessary adaptation to virtual management and virtual teams. However, previous studies are mostly centered around voluntary, and on a far smaller scale, relocation to a home-based workspace. Therefore, selection effects may play a role in the results collected by previous research, as the results do not take into account that the involuntary part of the population may adapt differently than those who choose to work virtually willingly. Such things as individual attitudes, personalities, or mental preparedness may all play a part in how willing or adaptable we are to working virtually. COVID-19 therefore presents a unique opportunity to explore this existing research gap where in some cases entire teams have had to make the relocation and quickly adapt to their new “office” and near-exclusive virtual channels of communication. It is an interesting situation as it calls for the fast-paced adaptability of entire teams to a seemingly unpredictable crisis that caught the world off guard.

The lack of a conclusive mass of results, as well as a newly arisen situation that requires faster adaptation on a larger scale, presents a difficult challenge for managers and their teams. The existing knowledge gap in addition to the many challenges presented as a result of the current pandemic inspires and compels to aid in providing managers with a more comprehensive view of the matter in their adaptation to both current and future similar situations.

1.3 Purpose

The purpose of this study is to explore the perceived changes in team productivity amongst managers as a result of shifting from managing a team physically to managing virtually. The purpose is pursued using primary survey- and interview data which will be sampled from a large international company based in the technology industry. By contributing to the already existing studies, the aim is to assist and provide further insight into the contrasting results of prior research, by studying this phenomenon in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and exploring the research gap of a mass relocation to the virtual workspace. Ultimately, aiding managers faced with present or future situations to manage teams virtually.

1.4 Research Question

How have perceptions of team productivity among managers changed after moving to working virtually, compared to working in a collocated environment?

(9)

3

1.5 Perspective

This study will adopt a managerial perspective. The managerial perspective is of particular interest to this study as the aim is to explore perceived productivity. The authors believe the managers will be able to provide a more comprehensive view of the team’s productivity level, whereas individual team members may not have the same comprehensive view of the team’s productivity level as a whole, and may not be able to take part in the same information as the manager. Consequently, the only views on the topic and issues presented in this study are those of managers.

1.6 Delimitations

The study will be excluding blue-collar workers and solely focus on the circumstances of white-collar workers before and during the pandemic. Even though the inclusion of blue-collar workers would have made for an interesting point of view in the midst of this particular crisis, this decision was made as blue-collar workers operate under different circumstances than white-collar workers as they may not be able to bring their work home. Therefore, for the sake of capturing employees that can be expected to have worked virtually during the pandemic, the study is delimited to white-collar workers only.

1.7 Disposition

The following chapter will highlight related existing literature, which will help explore the circumstances for virtual teams and their effects on productivity. That will then be followed by the conceptual framework that will serve as a basis for the current study, followed by a fourth chapter which will present the methodology upon which the study is conducted. The fifth chapter will see the quantitative and qualitative findings of the study presented, which will be succeeded by an analysis chapter that will compare and analyze the literature of chapter two with the findings presented in chapter five. Lastly, a seventh chapter will conclude the results of the study and present a summarized discussion, any subsequent implications, limitations, and suggested areas of future research.

(10)

4

2. Literature Review

This chapter will present preceding studies and literature covering the topic of working virtually and virtual management. It will start by providing an outlined overview on the topic of productivity in virtual teams, followed by more detailed studies presenting the main factors that will be explored throughout this study; communication, trust, unity, conflict resolution, and finally planning. The literature presented here will be used for comparison to the findings of this study in later chapters.

The existing literature on the topic of virtual team productivity is more focused on how different events or levels of virtuality affect relationships or work task outcomes directly, ultimately looking at if there is a generally positive or negative effect of its existence. Hence, in this chapter, the general disparity of the existing literature will be presented first to give the reader an understanding of the differing opinions on the productivity outcomes of virtual teams.

The general section will then be followed by a more specific division of what could be found on the effects of virtuality on specific factors that in turn relate to team productivity. The specific factors that have been highlighted are communication, trust, team unity, conflict resolution, and planning. The reason for singling out these factors was that the factors communication, trust, and unity kept proving to be reoccurring factors throughout the existing literature, reflecting their importance to virtual team productivity. The three factors also showed varying degrees of significant correlations in many of the past studies. Based on an inductive research method which allows for constant comparison between theory and data, conflict resolution and planning was singled out in hindsight once findings from the survey results revealed a particularly strong impact on these factors due to the introduction of the virtual workspace.

2.1 Virtual Work and Team Productivity

Labor productivity—henceforth referred to as “productivity”—can be explained as the output of an employee (Datta et al., 2005; Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011; Kim & Ployhart, 2014). The literature that examines the effects of working virtually on productivity mostly talks about job performance which is defined differently depending on the study. However, productivity is usually one aspect of job performance but it is not possible to isolate the effect on productivity in all prior studies.

There is little consensus about whether productivity is positively or negatively affected by working virtually. How well a transition from office-based work is handled, partly has to do with how used the employees are to using the necessary technology. Moreover, support in how to better use the technology is also of importance. (Carillo et al., 2021;

(11)

5

Collins, 2005) In a study by Collins (2005), it was found that managers seemingly appeared to have a ‘blindness’ to problems with IT. Apart from technology, the new working space and noise are also key to the adjustment (Carillo et al., 2021). One factor that has been found to positively affect productivity is not having to spend time commuting to and from work which is both time-consuming and stressful (Carillo et al., 2021; Delanoeije & Verbruggen, 2020). Stress is yet another factor that determines how well the transition is handled (Carillo et al., 2021).

Different aspects of the relationships between employees, managers, and coworkers also affect productivity in different ways. It has been argued that there is a positive effect of working virtually on the manager-employee relationship (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Furthermore, it has been found by Golden and Veiga (2008) that those who work more extensively in a virtual mode exhibit higher levels of productivity, this effect occurs for those with both high and low manager-employee exchange qualities. While the performance increase appears greater for those with higher manager-employee exchange relationships, performance is still increased for those who work extensively in a virtual mode, despite a lower quality exchange relationship. (Golden & Veiga, 2008) Golden and Gajendran (2019) similarly found that it is not about the level of social support from managers but rather that there is social support. They do however issue an observation in regard to the job complexity of the employee’s job and that the aspects of their work should be taken into consideration and not only the extent of working virtually (Golden & Gajendran, 2019).

It is especially important that managers offer the necessary support as well as autonomy in a crisis situation. It will enable the employees to adapt to difficult crisis-induced circumstances individually in ways that work best for each individual. (Bartsch et al., 2021) A study by Neufeld and Fang (2005) shows results indicating that virtual workers’1

quality of their social interactions with managers and family members were strongly associated with their productivity. The individuals with high perceived productivity were also the individuals who reported positive manager interactions, whereas those with low perceived productivity reported weak social interactions with their manager. Social interactions did not only affect productivity directly but also through the employee’s attitudes and beliefs. (Neufeld & Fang, 2005)

Furthermore, professional isolation has been found to have a negative relationship to job performance for virtual workers (Golden et al., 2008; van der Lippe & Lippényi, 2020). Van der Lippe and Lippényi’s (2020) study shows that working virtually has a negative relationship to individual perceived efficiency in performing job tasks, i.e., productivity. This could possibly be explained by the social and professional isolation that occurs when

1_{Virtual workers can also be referred to as remote workers, teleworkers etc. Throughout this study the}

(12)

6

working from home (van der Lippe & Lippényi, 2020) and could be prevented by for example initiating daily meetings (Carillo et al., 2021). The negative effects that occur from professional isolation make it important to understand how virtual workers can feel connected to their coworkers when working virtually (Schinoff et al., 2020).

In additions to the factors previously mentioned, technological habit, work relationships, and professional isolation, Chong et al. (2020) studied mandatory virtual work due to COVID-19 and found that task setbacks, such as learning new ways of operating remotely and having to adapt to new advisories, together with being dependent on coworkers in tasks lead to emotional end-of-day exhaustion. Task setbacks during the pandemic are likely to require the use of more resources into communicating and coordinating with coworkers to solve the problem. End-of-day exhaustion combined with a low organizational task support results in next-day work withdrawal behavior, for example, absence or taking breaks the employee should not take. (Chong et al., 2020)

2.2 Communication

The role of communication in virtual teams is highly stressed in the existing literature, in particular, its importance to virtual team productivity, both on its own merits, but also as it is closely connected to other central team-related factors, such as trust, unity, conflict resolution, and planning. In this, the performance of professional teams is likely to be compromised by virtuality as it creates additional strain on the productivity of virtual teams through lack of communication and miscommunication. (Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2009)

A 2013 study on virtual workers, i.e., workers who are using computer- and communications technology at locations much closer to their homes in order to carry out their work tasks, shows that the manner in which the manager speaks to the team matters. The results showed that if the manager uses motivational language towards employees the productivity is positively affected as a result. The use of motivational language also affected the employees’ organizational commitment and job satisfaction. The study further found that in the world of virtual workers, direction-giving language was found to be the most successful and motivational, it was also the most used form of language. (Madlock, 2013)

In an empirical study exploring how conventional team meetings and the communications used in meetings affect team success, Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012) found evidence that there is a linkage between team success and team meeting interactions. They also found that dysfunctional communication behavior, such as complaining or criticizing, would cause a multitude of negative relationships as an outcome. Another result of their study was that dysfunctional communication appeared to have a greater effect on team meeting success than functional communication. (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012) It could therefore be reasonably assumed that this would be reflected in virtual teams as well.

(13)

7

The level of face-to-face communication has been found to affect performance as well. Golden et al. (2008) found in their study that employees that experienced professional isolation and spent extensive time working from a distance exhibited the lowest performance and that they suffer the most when they have limited face-to-face interactions. However, it would also appear that extensive face-to-face interaction takes away from performance for those workers who experience limited isolation, maybe because such interactions are not essential to job performance. (Bloom et al., 2015; Golden et al., 2008) Similarly, it has been found that spending less time talking to, or being interrupted by, coworkers is positively related to productivity (Delanoeije & Verbruggen, 2020; Nakrošienė et al., 2019). Thus, yielding more time to spend on their work tasks (Nakrošienė et al., 2019). The evidence of what essential role face-to-face interactions play on distributed team productivity is hence divergent, with some authors showing a negative fall out on the team’s productivity and some authors’ results showing the opposite.

Finally, in a study by Bosch-Sijtsema et al. (2009), where the authors collected past literature in order to establish a framework to get a better overhead view of the elements which were either enabling or hindering the productivity of knowledge workers of virtual teams. They found that virtual teams have to deal with an entirely new set of challenges than the conventional team, and their results provide a good summary of the challenges faced by virtual teams. Prominently, virtual teams are prone to delays in communication and feedback loops, for which the outcomes of these delays are an obstruction of effective communication. The authors also found that virtual teams usually miss out on a lot of important nonverbal communication, whereas conventional teams are shown to communicate more effectively as the communication channels of distributed teams are usually leaner and less rich than what you would get from face-to-face communication. They also miss quintessential support from other team members. Additionally, virtual teams are also more likely to misinterpret messages in the form of written text, an outcome of varying personal salience and interpretations. Besides communicational- and technical challenges, virtual teams also face difficulties in their efforts to coordinate across different time zones, creating yet another barrier for effective communication. (Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2009)

The importance of communication is further underlined by its role in other paramount team elements such as trust between team members, team unity, conflict resolution, and team processes such as planning. Communication is shown to affect each of the aforementioned factors in key aspects of their success. (Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2009)

Based on past literature, the authors of this current study expect to find similar results of decreased effective communication as a result of the pandemic and having to relocate to an increased virtual workspace. Specifically, the authors expect to find delays in

(14)

8

communication as well as a decreased level of rich contextual communication, the authors also expect more miscommunication, and finally, a lack of support within the team.

2.3 Trust

Trust is important when virtual activities require coordination of actions as it is seen as a determining factor for how effective the activities will be. Trust in virtual teams increases communication, cooperation as well as information gathering. (Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2009) An important aspect of the development of trust for virtual teams is that it is not static, and the development may differ between different stages of collaboration (Wei et al., 2018).

Working virtually and trying to create and maintain trust can be challenging for leaders. One important aspect of virtual work is that there are limited face-to-face conversations meaning that there is a need for the team leader to communicate effectively and make sure the team members receive enough information. The informal information surrounding what is happening in the organization that would be easily shared in an office needs to be taken into consideration by the leader. This means that the leader needs to create substitutes for the formal and informal communication that would have occurred if they were working in an office in order to create trust. Offering substitutes for social and emotional support is yet another thing that can increase trust within the team, an example of this is a company that invented a virtual break room where team members can meet to have casual conversations with other team members. Having set out clearly defined tasks are also important for trust. If a team member is not performing well the leader also needs to either discipline or remove that member. Furthermore, it is also of importance for the creation of trust that the leader often communicates, both individually and collectively, to the team members regarding expectations on each member’s tasks. (Ford et al., 2017)

It has been found that team confidence enhances the trust in virtual teams (Wei et al., 2018). When working virtually team members tend to have higher trust for those in the team that is trusted by the leader than for those that are not as trusted by the leader. This relationship between leader trust and team member trust is stronger when the team performance is low. (Lau & Liden, 2008)

Trust has been found to affect team performance in several ways when working collocated. Trust within teams affects both team monitoring and team effort and both factors have been shown to have an impact on performance (de Jong & Elfring, 2010). Furthermore, the trust within teams is also positive in relation to knowledge sharing, which is part of transactive memory, which also affects team performance (Robertson et al., 2013). A study by de Jong et al. (2016) found that team trust has a direct effect on team performance and that to what extent the relationship is positive is depending on how the team is structured and organized.

(15)

9

Previous studies have found that virtual workers’ team trust has a direct positive effect on perceived team performance (Breuer et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2018). Contrary to these findings, Alsharo et al. (2017) found no direct effect from trust on team effectiveness and stated that it was unclear as to why no direct relationship was found. What was found instead was that trust impacts collaboration which in turn impacts team effectiveness. (Alsharo et al., 2017) According to Breuer et al. (2016) the level of virtuality also has an effect on how much trust impacts the performance, when there is high virtuality the relationship between trust and performance is stronger.

Based on the prior literature, it can hence be expected that the level of trust within the teams will suffer by working in virtual environments, relative to collocated ones, due to decreased quality of communication as a consequence.

2.4 Team Unity

In a study by Bosch-Sijtsema et al. (2009) team unity is described as a factor that is highly important for virtual teams to be successful because it leads to team effectiveness. Similarly, Klang and Luria (2020) found that team unity serves as a mediator between team bonding and effectiveness when working collocated. Dense friendship ties in a team, i.e., team bonding, will increase the sense of belonging in the team and therefore increase team unity. The increased team unity then positively impacts effectiveness. (Klang & Luria, 2020) Team unity when working in the same place has also been found to impact knowledge sharing which consequently affects individual performance. When there is team unity there will be more actions of asking and giving advice, thus knowledge sharing increases. Furthermore, a united team is likely to disagree as much as a less united team but the united team will probably be more eager to share knowledge due to increased motivation to achieve the established goals. (van Woerkom & Sanders, 2010) A study by Park et al. (2017) found that team unity moderates the relationship between team efficacy, i.e., the team members’ collective belief about the team’s capability to perform tasks successfully, and team performance for collocated workers. When there is high team unity the relationship is stronger and when there is low team unity the relationship weakens. (Park et al., 2017)

Meanwhile, a prominent challenge to managers in virtual teams is that diversity makes it difficult to create team unity. It has also been found that high levels of team unity tend to lead to members of the team becoming less willing to share opinions that diverge from the opinions of the rest of the team, this type of team conformance is not good for the creativity within the team. (Wei et al., 2018)

Team unity has also been found to influence the relationship between goal setting, trust, and team performance. Goal setting impacts team unity which in turn impacts performance, the relation between goal setting and team unity is additionally moderated by trust climate. When there is a high trust climate the members of the team will feel keener to invest in social relationships and actions with the rest of the team. If there is a

(16)

10

trust climate while setting goals the team members will believe that the rest of the team will work to reach the goals that are agreed upon. Thus, the setting of team goals can more easily result in team unity when there is trust. (Brahm & Kunze, 2012) Other studies have presented differing results on the relationship between team unity and team trust for virtual teams. According to Breuer et al. (2016), team trust in virtual teams is directly related to the perceived team unity. While Wei et al. (2018) argue that virtual teams that are more united will experience greater trust within the team. As previously noted, trust has been found to impact team performance which means that team unity indirectly affects the performance of the team by first increasing trust (Wei et al., 2018).

Based on previous research of team unity being fundamentally related to team trust, which is expected to suffer when working virtually, it can hence be expected that there will be a decrease in team unity as well when moving to a virtual environment, relative to working collocated. The limited time spent together due to working virtually further strengthens the expectation that team unity will decrease.

2.5 Conflict Resolution

In addition to the aforementioned factors, conflict resolution has also shown to play a vital role in the productivity of virtual teams. Virtual teams run a greater risk of experiencing conflict. Literature states that this is due to virtual teams being hindered from communicating clearly by mediating technologies, consequently causing conflict. Conflict is also more likely to escalate into a relationship-based conflict due to the ease of avoiding team members with whom you have conflict. (Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2009; Hinds & Bailey, 2003; Martínez-Moreno et al., 2012)

However, the effects of conflict on teams and team performance are not new to virtual teams. Rather, conflict and conflict resolution have played a role in team performance and productivity for the last decades. (Shaw et al., 2011) Past literature results showed a significantly negative relation between relationship conflict to both member-, and leader-rated performance (Greer et al., 2011). Another study revealed similar results by looking at both relationship conflict and task conflict, i.e., differentiated ideas on work-related tasks, and their relationship to team performance. The study found that interpersonal tension and relationship conflicts have a significant negative impact on team performance. (Shaw et al., 2011) These studies are later reaffirmed by a 2012 study that saw that relationship conflict in teams has a significant negative relationship on team performance. The study states that if the core of the conflict is not the work task itself, but relationship-based, it will serve as an obstruction to completing work, effectively hindering team productivity. (Huang, 2012)

Unfortunately, there is little overlap between the literature on virtual workspaces and that of conflict resolutions. One theory-based study by Hinds and Bailey (2003) concluded that they believe that conflict will continue to take away from performance even in virtual teams. In this, they note that in virtual teams, there is more opportunity to avoid other

(17)

11

team members with which they may have a conflict. The researchers also point out that the possibilities for open expression and clear communication may be hindered by mediating technologies. (Hinds & Bailey, 2003) In another study by Martínez-Moreno et al. (2012), they found that virtual teams who use chat- or text-based media to communicate possess more characteristics that actually prevent work-related conflict from degenerating into relationship-based conflict. However, the results also show that conflict is more likely to escalate into relationship conflict when virtual teams communicate through video-conference, they conclude by proposing that it has to do with nonverbal signals, cues, and interruptions. (Martínez-Moreno et al., 2012) Finally, in a study by Bosch-Sijtsema et al. (2009), it is discussed how conflict can remain unidentified and unaddressed longer in virtual teams compared to teams that are collocated. The study also states that uninhibited behavior and disturbance are more common in virtual work contexts than in physical work locations. Based on their research, they express that the

additional negative elements of virtual teams, compared to that of collocated teams, will act as negative and hindering factors to virtual team productivity (Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2009).

Based on the results of past literature on conflict and conflict resolution in virtual teams, the authors expect to reach similar results in regard to the conflict being more difficult to spot in a virtual environment, as well as mediating and managing it being effectively more difficult. The resulting consequence of which being a decrease in productivity.

2.6 Planning

When it comes to virtual teams, the existing empirical studies and theory accredit a fundamental role of the planning process for establishing clear team goals (Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2009; Brahm & Kunze, 2012; Ford et al., 2017). The importance of planning for team goals has been made imminent by goal-setting theory, in order to reach a higher task performance, there need to be clear and challenging goals set (Brahm & Kunze, 2012; Lee & Wei, 2011; Locke, 1968). Task performance is the productivity of a team concerning a specific team task (Brahm & Kunze, 2012). By being too vague or setting too easy goals, task performance will suffer. Theory also suggests that by participating in the process of establishing goals, it makes you more prone to performing better. Studies show that groups participating in setting their own goals result in higher performance rates than when goals are simply just assigned to the group. However, goals that are well motivated with purpose and well explained to the group, even when assigned, can be just as effective as participative goal setting. It is when the goals are assigned and poorly explained that performance levels decline significantly. (Lee & Wei, 2011) Lee and Wei (2011) tested the hypothesis of whether team goal setting participation would positively relate to team performance and team identification, they found that their hypothesis was well supported and that there is as proposed, a positive relationship between the variables. (Lee & Wei, 2011)

(18)

12

It is, however, unclear whether there is a direct positive relationship between the establishment of efficient planning and team performance, or if team trust and unity first need to be established in order to reach higher team performance levels. (Brahm & Kunze, 2012) The results of the above-mentioned research reaffirmed the proposals of a past study which stated that goal-setting is positively associated with team unity, collaboration, commitment, and decision quality in virtual teams (Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2009).

However, the implementation of clear goals has been shown to be a considerably more challenging task for virtual teams than for non-virtual teams. According to Hertel et al. (2004), it is more difficult for a virtual team to implement and maintain common goals, the reason being that for virtual team members, it is far more difficult to participate, discuss, and communicate the goals amongst themselves. It is also a bigger challenge for virtual teams to coordinate their actions (Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2009; Hertel et al., 2004). Past literature then comes back around to once again state that in order for virtual teams to be more productive, goals need to be clearly structured, the purpose should be explicit, and it should be clear to the employee what is expected out of their efforts (Ford et al., 2017).

Drawing from the existing literature on planning for team goals, the authors of the current study expect that planning will have a decrease in effectiveness due to decreased amount of contextual communication, resulting in goals becoming less clear to the team, and coordination more difficult to manage.

(19)

13

3. Conceptual Framework

In this chapter, the study’s conceptual framework will be presented. The framework is built around an adapted model based on the model established by Bosch-Sijtsema et al. (2009). The model will act as a base for the current study, its methods, and data collection.

There are multiple factors that either enable or hinder productivity in virtual teams. As the pandemic provided a unique new situation where entire teams had to become virtual very fast, the authors have chosen a relatively broad framework to use as a basis. A broader framework that covers many possible factors that may enable- or cause hindrance to productivity will allow for more coverage in this previously underexplored area. The chosen framework still holds bearing in the current topic and allows for the researchers to take a broad approach to the issue, even if not as extensive as other literature which focuses on fewer factors such as Hinds and Bailey (2003), Martínez-Moreno et al. (2012), or Ford et al. (2017). Drawing from the work of Bosch-Sijtsema et al. (2009), this study seeks to understand how certain factors will affect the productivity of virtual teams, originating from the dimensions of organizational context, workplace, team process, team structure and composition, and team task.2_{(Bosch-Sijtsema et al. 2009) In this study, the}

authors have chosen to develop an adapted version of this model (see Figure 1 below) in order to fit the current circumstances that the pandemic has created. In this study, the main focus will be on three of the factors presented as a part of team processes in the model: communication, trust, and team unity. The choice for studying these particular factors comes based on the findings of more recent literature, and their expected effect on other factors (Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2009; Brahm & Kunze, 2012; Breuer et al., 2016; Ford et al., 2017; Wei et al., 2018).

In the adaptation of the model, certain factors within the dimensions of the original model have been either brought forward or excluded from the adapted version. Meaning that some factors that were part of a category within the dimensions in the Bosch-Sijtsema model are described explicitly in the adapted version. To begin with, ‘organizational context’, which previously incorporated company culture, reward systems, etc., has been included in the adapted model, but only consists of access to ‘technological resources’. The factor was kept in order to further understand the circumstances of the teams, but only to verify its level of accessibility. This choice was made as its inclusion can come to affect their adaptability to working virtually. However, the other factors of

(20)

14

‘organizational context’ were excluded as these aspects of the team and company are believed to remain unaffected by the pandemic.

Additionally, the factor of ‘workspace’ is included in the adapted model but only used to confirm that the participants of the study have in fact had to change workspace due to the pandemic. The change in workspace is of importance as it is a prerequisite of participating in the study. Similarly, ‘team tasks’ have been kept in the adaptive model but only to confirm that the teams are still performing their regular work tasks, but now from an increased virtual workspace. The factors ‘workspace’ and ‘team tasks’ have hence been kept in the model for confirmation purposes in order to verify the circumstances of the participants in the current study.

Finally, ‘team processes’, ‘team structure’, and ‘team composition’, have been highlighted in the adaptive model. The reason for its reflected importance is due to the team’s ability to change these factors during the pandemic, these are the factors that will be the main focus of exploration in this study. Factors such as ‘communication’ and ‘team unity’ are such that they may have been affected by the pandemic, and the teams have the means to change them in order to better adapt to their new circumstances. Unlike ‘organizational context’ and ‘team task’, the authors make the assumption that the teams and their respective managers have limited to no control of these aspects, as most organizational context stays the same during an expectedly temporary crisis, and the team is still expected to perform their regular work tasks.

Figure 1 Adapted model from Bosch-Sijtsema et al. (2009). Enabling and hindering factors of virtual team productivity

(21)

15

4. Methodology

In this section, the research philosophy, research method and design, case selection, data collection, and data analysis are presented. Additionally, the ethical considerations and trustworthiness of the study are established and discussed.

4.1 Research Philosophy

There are several reasons why researchers should elaborate on their research philosophy. One of which is that it is essential in order for the reader to understand not only the research design but also to fully grasp the conclusions and outcomes of the researchers’ study. (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018) It is for this reason that the authors have chosen to further elaborate on the philosophical underlinings of the study.

Ontology refers to the philosophical assumptions that the authors make about the nature of reality (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018) and thus also the philosophical assumptions made whilst conducting this research. For this study, the authors have adopted the ontological view of relativism. Relativism as an ontological view states that there is not just one single truth that exists independently of any observations made. Relativism instead states that there are many truths and realities, and they depend on the observer’s perspective (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). As the results of this study are based upon individuals and their view and perspective on the matter and is qualitative in nature, the chosen ontological position is well supported. The conducted analyzes are all aimed at the individuals’ perspective and personal experience, and therefore, there exist many versions and realities of what the ‘truth’ is.

As for epistemology, epistemology is, according to Easterby-Smith et al., “... the study of

the nature of knowledge and ways of enquiring into the physical and social world: how do we know what we know?” (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018, p. 120). In the context of the

current study, where individuals’ experiences and points of view matter and lays the ground for the study’s outcome, results, and conclusion, the epistemological position that is arguably the better fit is social constructionism (or simply constructionism). Social constructionism is explained by Easterby-Smith et al. (2018) as the phenomena in which reality is something not to be determined by external factors. Instead, the idea of what reality is determined by people and their experiences, the way that people make sense of their experiences is what is the most important. (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018)

Ontological relativism in combination with the epistemological position of social constructionism is also a good match for these types of case studies as they complement each other and do not contradict their respective ideas. They are both a good fit for qualitative data that is composed of mainly words but also numbers to some extent

(22)

16

(Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). The choice in research philosophy is thereby strengthened as this matches the intentions of this study which seeks to first establish a base from primary survey data but will draw its main conclusions from its subsequent follow-up interviews.

4.2 Research Method and Research Design

In accordance with the chosen positions of research philosophy, relativism, and social constructionism, both numerical and qualitative data will be collected using qualitative methods of survey and follow-up interviews. This two-stage method will be applied as it will allow for the study to first get a general overview of where most managers struggle at this time. This will then allow for the interviews to be more precisely focused when gathering more in-depth insight. The study itself will be accomplished using a single case study method. As previously mentioned above, case studies focus in-depth on a smaller number of entities, in this case, the authors will be looking into one single organization. The reason for adopting a single case study method instead of a multiple case method is specifically due to two of Yin’s (2018) rationales for using a single case study. The first being that it is a common case and therefore other cases can expect similar results. The second reason is that it is a longitudinal case, which is a single case that is looked at two or more different points in time (Yin, 2018). This fits the study as the authors are exploring how their process and daily work have changed and its effects since the start of the pandemic.

As the intention of this study is to explore ‘how’ managers perceive employee productivity after the shift from being physically present to physically distant from their teams. The study is of exploratory and inductive nature. As such, it seeks to contribute to both the already existing theory and empirical research. An inductive research approach is argued to be fitting to the study as it has a single case, contradicting knowledge, and will be making constant comparisons between data and existing theory (Eisenhardt, 1989; Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). This type of research design is also compatible with the choice of using a qualitative single case study as the preferred method, as case method research design generally focuses more in-depth on one, or a smaller number of entities such as events, individuals, or organizations (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018).

4.2.1 Survey Design

The survey is based on the presented conceptual framework which consists of organizational context, workspace, team process, team structure and composition, and team task. In the survey, there is a focus on three of the team processes: communication, trust, and team unity. The reason for focusing on these three was that the factors kept proving to be reoccurring in the existing literature which reflects their importance to virtual team productivity. The three factors also showed varying degrees of significant correlations in many of the past studies.

(23)

17

For communication, the change in the level of complexity to communicate from before the pandemic was explored followed by an item regarding how the change was perceived to affect the team’s productivity. For trust and team unity the level of each separately was explored, followed by an item regarding how the change was perceived to affect the team’s productivity. For the rest of the factors that are presented in the conceptual framework, it was only asked for the level of or existence of each. Those are: workspace, work tasks, size, technological resources, technological expertise, cultural diversity, planning, and conflict resolution. (see Appendix B Layout of Survey)

The survey consisted of 18 items in total. The first two items asked about how many years the manager had worked for the company and the total number of years of managerial experience. These two items were asked in order for the researchers to see if there were any considerable differences in answers for each of these items in relation to the other items, such as communication, among the different intervals. For each item, except for the initial two items as well as workspace and team task, there were two sub-items that called for different points in time. The first part was the level or existence of a factor before the start of the pandemic and the second part was in regards to the present date of the survey. This division into sub-items was done in order to see how each factor had changed since before the pandemic.

4.2.2 Interview Structure

Based on the survey responses, interview questions were developed for the semi-structured interviews. Apart from exploring the main factors of communication, trust, and team unity, two additional factors were explored: planning and conflict resolution. These two were chosen because the survey result showed that those two had been the most affected since the pandemic started. The subjects explored in the interviews were perceived productivity in relation to each factor individually and also how the factors had changed since before the pandemic. (see Appendix D Interview Questionnaire)

The interview questionnaire consisted of eight predetermined questions and as the interviews were conducted semi-structured it allowed the researchers to ask follow-up questions based on the answers. The first question asked whether the manager and the team had to change workspace due to COVID-19, this question was only asked for reassurance that the manager and team actually had to change to working virtually and therefore be applicable to participate in the study. The second question asked about how many years the manager had worked for the company and the total number of years of managerial experience. Even though the researchers did not find any notable differences in regards to these two in the general answers in the survey, the researchers still decided to include these questions in the interviews. The reason for this was that the researchers wanted to wait and see if they could find any additional underlying patterns that could be connected to the survey results afterward. The last question asked was if the managers had noticed any other positive or negative effects on their teams as a result of working

(24)

18

from home, this was asked because it provided an opportunity for the managers to perhaps relate back to the other factors already discussed when asked to think freely.

4.3 Case Selection

The sampling method chosen for this particular study was that of purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is used when the intent of the study requires the sample to fulfill certain prerequisites in order to be valid participants in the study. This form of sampling is of a non-probability variety, and only the participants who satisfy the predetermined criteria are fit for inclusion. (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018) The selection for a participant’s inclusion in this study is based on the following criteria: They had to be a white-collar manager who is leading a team, and their teams had to have recently changed from working in a physical office to working virtually as a result of the pandemic.

The studied company expressed wishes to remain anonymous as some information used to explore this topic may be considered as sensitive, especially considering the involvement of their managerial staff. As a result, the company name and descriptive statistics will be excluded from this study. The researchers chose to forgo this additional information in the interest of protecting the company and its participating employees to the advantage of ethical considerations. However, the analysis does permit for a generic description to better understand the context of the current research and its subsequent outcomes. The company in question will henceforth be referred to as “The company”.

The company is a large international company based in the technology industry. As such, it may have certain advantages when making a switch to physically absent managers. The first advantage may be that as an international company, working on a global scale grant that many of their employees already have experience from managing- or being a part of teams across geographical distance. A second advantage might be their size and the resources that are therefore available to them, such as increased human capital, and the experience and expertise they may possess. Their size can however also come with certain disadvantages; the size of the organization might also mean that it requires larger efforts in order to make the switch to remote management and scattered teams, meaning that everything from technological, educational, to HR efforts are required. Due to the large nature of the company, they also have a larger number of stakeholders to keep in mind, which may further complexify their strategic decision-making.

The company was chosen due to its large size, international context, and operating industry. The size of the company allows for a larger population size who are able to participate in the study and choosing a company with an international culture allows for a more diverse sample of participants. Having the company operating in the technological industry also ensures the researcher that a large number of employees and managers will be white-collar workers.

(25)

19

4.4 Data Collection

In order to answer the research question and explore the topic of the study, primary data was collected in the form of quantitative survey data and qualitative interview data. Survey data was first collected in an effort to get a general understanding of what factors the company’s managers perceive to have been affected the most since the start of the pandemic. This decision was made as the preexisting literature on the topic of having an entire team become virtual in a very short amount of time, at the time of the current study, is limited. Therefore, in order for the researchers to establish an overview of which factors had changed the most since the pandemic, and which of the main factors had the biggest impact on perceived productivity, survey data needed to be collected from a larger sample. Survey data fit this particular reason well as it is used to measure multiple factors simultaneously, which made it a suitable choice for the objective of the data collection (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). This further allowed for the interviews to be more precise in hopes of getting more in-depth knowledge of the main causes for any change in perceived productivity. In total, there were 110 managers who participated in the electronic survey which was facilitated through Qualtrics, allowing for a good base to be established by the researchers.

After the initial quantitative data collection, semi-structured interviews were held in order to gain a better understanding of how different factors affected team productivity. A semi-structured interview method was chosen as they are frequently used when trying to understand the perceived views and opinions of the interviewees on a particular matter or situation (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). This aligns well with the purpose of the current study, as the aim is to get deeper insights into how the managers perceive team productivity to have changed in this particular situation. The loose structure of the interviews granted for more open discussion (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018) on the issues which allowed for the managers to express their opinions more freely and was hence a suitable choice. There were four semi-structured interviews held in total, all facilitated via Microsoft Teams in accordance with safety recommendations concerning the ongoing pandemic. The interviews all lasted between 18 and 44 minutes, three out of the four interviews were held in English, and one in Swedish. All the interviews were recorded as predetermined between the researchers and interviewees.

4.5 Data Analysis

The first step of analyzing the survey results was to look at the default report provided by Qualtrics which offers a general overview of the answer to each item. It allowed the researchers to take note of any changes between before the start of the pandemic and the date of the survey in each item. In this report, the researchers looked for the factors that had been most affected since before the pandemic in order to create questions for the interviews. The results were also analyzed in SPSS where graphs were created to look at different relationships between years worked for the company, years of managerial experience, and the items explored. The initial analysis of graphs showed no notable

(26)

20

differences from either years worked for the company or managerial experience in relation to the general answers.

Grounded analysis was chosen for analyzing the data collected in the interviews. Grounded analysis aims at building theory by identifying categories in the collected data. Hence, it is not about analyzing the data with predefined concepts. (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018) This method of analysis is appropriate for the purpose of this study because the study is aiming at providing further insight into prior research that is contradicting and also bringing in the COVID-19 pandemic as context. Thus, it is fitting to use a method that is developing categories based on the data itself which will allow the researchers to fully explore the data and not be bound by predetermined categories or themes. Furthermore, grounded analysis will therefore allow the researchers to fulfill the purpose of this study.

There are seven general steps to follow when doing grounded analysis. The steps are: familiarization, reflection, open coding, conceptualization, focused re-coding, linking, and re-evaluation. (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018) In order for the researchers to familiarize themselves and reflect on the data, both researchers individually went through the data once the interviews had been transcribed. Then the open coding began where the researchers went through the data once again and began writing down codes in the form of words or short phrases. Afterward, the conceptualization began where the codes were compared and organized into different categories. The final step was re-coding in which the codes and categories created were examined once again and structured into themes. (see Appendix E Coding)

4.6 Ethical Considerations

Research in business and management can hurt the organizations or individuals participating in the research if it is not conducted ethically (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). Thus, ethical considerations need to be taken while conducting research. Bell and Bryman (2007) identified key principles in ethical practice while conducting management research. In order to be sure of ethical conduction during the whole research process, the authors used these principles as guidelines. These are Bell and Bryman’s key principles in research ethics as presented by Easterby-Smith et al. (2018):

1. Ensuring that no harm comes to participants 2. Respecting the dignity of research participants

3. Ensuring a fully informed consent of research participants 4. Protecting the privacy of research participants

5. Ensuring the confidentiality of research data

6. Protecting the anonymity of individuals and organizations 7. Avoiding deception about the nature or aims of the research 8. Declaration of affiliations, funding sources and conflicts of interest 9. Honesty and transparency in communicating about the research 10. Avoidance of any misleading or false reporting of research findings

(27)

21

The researchers followed principles one, four, and six by not naming neither company name nor research participants, which ensured that no harm was done and it also protected the privacy and anonymity of the case company and research participants. Furthermore, the authors are not providing any critical information about the company that could be used to identify it. In order to follow principle nine, the researchers honestly and transparently informed the research participants about the research, their role in it, that their participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time at the beginning of the survey and before the interviews. The managers who participated in the interviews were also sent a GDPR Thesis Study Consent Form they had to sign, which informed them once again about the research and their participation. This made sure that all research participants had fully informed consent and avoided deception by not giving false information or trying to mislead in any way. This was done in accordance with principles three and seven.

To follow principle eight the researchers ensured to inform both the case company and research participants that the research was being conducted for a master thesis at Jönköping International Business School and that the researchers had no conflicts of interest. The authors did receive funding for their research as the company itself was also interested in its findings, however, as the company remains strictly anonymous, there was no incentive to reflect the company and its circumstances in any other way than in which findings suggested. The findings have therefore not been allowed any reconstruction in any which way. The authors respected the dignity of the research participants by not asking any disrespectful questions in the survey or during interviews, which is in line with principle two. To follow principles five and ten, no unauthorized person had access to any of the research data in order to ensure confidentiality and the authors avoided misleading or false reporting of the findings by presenting most of the collected data in its original form. This means presenting the findings from the interviews word for word in the original language, i.e., English. However, as one of the interviews was conducted in Swedish the researchers made sure to carefully translate every word into English so that the meaning of the quotes were the same as expressed in Swedish. After translating the quotes they were confirmed by both researchers to be accurate. The survey was conducted in English which means that the authors were also able to present the findings from that in its original form, without the need for translation.

4.7 Trustworthiness

In order to establish the trustworthiness of this study Guba’s (1981) four aspects of trustworthiness for naturalistic studies were followed. Those four aspects are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Guba, 1981).

The first aspect, credibility, has to do with making sure that what is found through the study is the “truth” by taking action to the complexities surrounding the area of research. One way to establish credibility is to use triangulation which was done by using two ways

(28)

22

of collecting data, i.e., a survey and interviews. Furthermore, two researchers conducted the study. Moreover, the authors have had fellow students conducting peer debriefings throughout the writing process which further strengthens the credibility. (Guba, 1981) The second aspect, transferability, means that the findings are able to be transferred into other contexts depending on how similar they are to the researched context. The authors used as much “thick” descriptive data as possible about the context of our study. (Guba, 1981) The sampling method for this study was purposive sampling. However, due to the anonymity of the case company, the researchers could not provide information that could be used to identify the company. Thus, it might reduce the understanding of the fit between this study context and other contexts.

The third aspect, dependability, is about consistency which has to do with trackable variance in the forms of error, shifts in reality, and improvement of insights. This was dealt with by using stepwise replication which means that the authors divided the findings into smaller parts before analyzing. Both researchers analyzed different parts by themselves before comparing the results with the other researcher. Furthermore, both the collecting of data and the way of analyzing have been thoroughly described in the study which gives external auditors insight necessary to examine the processes. Hence, strengthening the dependability. (Guba, 1981)

The last aspect, confirmability, has to do with how to diminish the risk of the handling of data reflecting the predispositions of the investigator. The triangulation of data collection not only increased credibility but also the confirmability. Therefore, the use of both survey and interviews is beneficial to the confirmability. (Guba, 1981)