There is one critical component that underlies all global teamwork: trust.

Therefore, what makes a virtual global project team successful? I would venture to guess that almost every single person reading this paragraph has interacted with/worked on/managed such a team, is currently doing so and will do so again in the future. There are various models that can be used as the basis for this work. In his article, Virtual Teams at Dell Inc.: Formation, Flexibility and Foresight in the Global Realm (premium), Leon Lee, International Generalist at Dell Corporation, describes several types used during projects covering web globalization, slogan transcreation and global e-procurement.

Regardless of the model used, there is one critical component that underlies all global teamwork: trust. Trust that the appropriate members have been assigned to the team to get the work done, trust that you will have timely access to accurate information, trust that a clear reporting structure will exist, etc. As Lee points out, "Bringing order to chaos" is the goal of every globalization project. Therefore, trust underpins everything that we do as members of virtual global teams.

To successfully build a global virtual team, one must first overcome the challenges imposed by geographical, cultural and time zone differences.

- Jia Osiel, Manager of Language Services, McDonald's Corporation

But this trust is of a very specific type, with certain characteristics that govern the interactions between team members. This trust is often built without the benefit of face-to-face interaction, multiple frames of reference (both cultural and functional) are a given and it’s often very short-term. Let’s take a look at how each of these characteristics affects how trust is built among virtual global team members.

Little/No Face-to-Face Interaction

If a team is lucky, its members will have the luxury of meeting in person at the beginning of a project, at least once or twice along the way and at the end for a post-mortem. However, whether due to budget constraints, travel restrictions, lack of time, etc., many of these meetings never take place.

We often project positive motivations to fellow team members whom we have never met.

How does this affect trust? In a positive way, for many teams. This is because team members are aware of the risks and make the extra effort required to over-communicate through email and by phone. In addition, researchers have found that email communication during projects may actually cause humans to project positive attributes and motivations to fellow team members whom they have never met. The assumption being that all members are rowing the boat in the same direction, and thus all members are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to fellow members. (See Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams, by Sirkka Jarvenpaa at the Graduate School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin and Dorothy Leidner at INSEAD.)

On the negative side, one of the biggest risks occurs when there is no clear reporting structure for team members. In most of today’s organizations, both matrix and direct reporting structures exist. It is key that the rules of engagement be spelled out at the beginning of a project. In this way, all members will understand how they fit into the structure and how it will affect their working relationships.

Multiple Frames of Reference (Cultural and Functional)

In the case of virtual global teams, differing cultural and functional perspectives come into play most often in relation to how the initial questions/challenges are framed and how decisions are actually made and implemented.

Individualistic vs. paternalistic vs. consensus-building: often the root of team conflict

In my experience as a member/manager of global teams over the last 20+ years, the greatest cultural differences usually manifest themselves in the give-and-take (“tug-and-pull?”) between the following three decisionmaking models: individualistic vs. paternalistic vs. consensus-building. This may be somewhat of an over-simplification, but the differences between these models are often at the root of most team conflicts if one digs deep enough to figure out what is “really” going on.

Lee includes a great example of this in his article. He describes how he had to organize two teleconferences each time his web globalization team met virtually by phone. The first teleconference included lower-level managers from Japan, so that the U.S. team from Dell could elicit their feedback and ideas prior to the second teleconference that included the upper-level managers from Japan. Without the first teleconference, Lee knew that the U.S. team would never succeed in garnering valuable input from the lower-level Japanese managers.

What I have just described is a great example of working behind the scenes by a Global Team Leader to smooth over different cultural approaches to decisionmaking. Sometimes, however, issues that arise due to the clash between decisionmaking styles caused by cultures must be brought out in the open to be resolved successfully. It is up to the Team Leader to be aware of when this needs to happen.

Our functional areas of expertise are like putting on a pair of glasses.

Even more important than the cultural differences, in my opinion, are the variations in perspective based on people’s functional areas of expertise. Not nearly enough attention is given to this area, even though a person’s function tends to override cultural differences in project situations. Our functional areas of expertise are like putting on a pair of glasses, through which we then view and interpret the world around us.

In other words, a Chinese Engineer is more apt to “think like” a German Engineer than like a Chinese Marketing Manager. Underneath the veneer of cultures in this example, the engineering “mindset” will almost always exercise a greater influence on a team member’s perspective in problem-solving and decisionmaking than any cultural pull.

The fallout from this is that you should look to differences in functional perspectives between team members, rather than immediately jump to the conclusion that the differences you are experiencing are due to the multicultural makeup of your team.

One other important difference in frames of reference for global project teamwork often manifests itself in a subset of the functional areas of expertise: the corporate/headquarters vs. non-corporate/field perspective. Each side views the other with differing expectations. Members at headquarters are often perceived by members in the field to have more power to affect change than they have in reality. They may also react to requests from the field in the mode of “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” thus overlooking the more critical issues that are being presented less forcefully.

On the other hand, it is up to members in the field to organize themselves so that they present their issues and possible solutions in a way that leverages current resources in the most efficient way possible, yet at the same time, does not dilute the end result of the team’s efforts. Both sides need to work together to ensure that upper management is brought in, when appropriate, to keep things moving and/or to bless changes to corporate business processes recommended by the team.

NOTE: Another level of complexity also exists when a global project team includes members from different companies/organizations and with different power relationships (e.g., customer vs. product vendor/service provider). This is becoming more and more common as more and more work is outsourced in every industry.

Short-term

The trust that underlies virtual global project teams that are successful is short-term in nature because teams are formed for specific projects or to meet particular challenges and are then disbanded. Due to the time element involved, team members know that they must trust one another without the usual time to get to know one another to build that trust. This is where timely access to accurate information is critical in allowing team members to meet individual, as well as collective, deadlines.

Maintaining the strands of “knowledge DNA”

One critical process that is often overlooked in this arena is the transfer of project knowledge when a specific project is finished and team members go their separate ways. The first step in this transfer needs to be a post-mortem session where the entire team reviews what went well, what didn’t and why, along with suggestions for improvement for the next time around.

The record of this meeting should then be plugged into whatever system an organization uses for its knowledge management. Of course, this is often where the process breaks down and goes nowhere because many organizations still have no way to build and maintain the strands of “knowledge DNA” that need to be passed on to its current/future employees cross-functionally to prevent the organization from rebuilding its wheels over and over. At the very least, some of what has been learned can be applied to updating/changing business processes to allow them to have a global focus, rather than just a domestic one. (Read Globalizing Business Processes: Moving Up the Food Chain, and A Day in the Life of the Globalization Manager at McDonald’s, part 1 (premium) and part 2 (premium).

EN-15038 will obsolete all other translation quality standards in Europe.

Juan José Arevalillo, Managing Director of Hermes Traducciones y Servicios Lingüísticos S.L. and Head of the Spanish Committee on EN-15038, describes an impressive accomplishment of a very virtual and very global team in his article, La norma europea de calidad EN-15038 para servicios de traducción: ¿qué hay tras ella? (public). This work is extremely important because this new standard will replace all other translation quality standards in Europe when it goes into effect, planned for the beginning of 2006.

Editor’s Note: This article is also available here as an English translation: The EN-15038 European Quality Standard for Translation Services: What’s Behind It? (public).

Professor David Crystal muses that perhaps it is time to create central language labs to process language samples.

We are very honored to have Professor David Crystal, one of the world's foremost experts on language and author of more than 100 books, as a contributor to this month’s Globalization Insider. In Multilingualism Is the Normal Human Condition: An Interview With Professor David Crystal (premium), he discusses (among other issues) how multilingual communication will evolve over the next decade and how to improve access to information that is often only available in English (it’s the quality of the source, stupid!). Along the way, he takes time to point out that three-quarters of the human race is bilingual and explains the value of creating central language labs to process language (instead of blood) samples.

Who just acquired GlobalSight? Check out “Money Talks.”

The globalization challenge is causing consolidation within our own industry. Check out John Freivalds’ Money Talks (premium) for the scoop on Transware plc acquiring GlobalSight.

After all these years, LISA is still the place to be – join us for the Global Strategies Summit in May!

LISA Events has been delivering top content and the best networking for organizations going global for over 15 years. Come join us in Boston (May 23-27) at our upcoming Global Strategies Summit to learn the latest best practices that will make a difference in how you operate your business. The Summit will provide many opportunities to find out how other companies are managing their global management content teams and for your team members to recharge their batteries by networking with others in the field. We have a great lineup of speakers/attendees, including American Express, ASPonline, BMC, British Airways, Canadian Translation Bureau, EMC, GE, HP, IBM, Kohler and the World Bank. AND a great lineup of content that covers topics such as the globalization landscape, implementing Global Content Management Systems, translating web sites with search engines in mind, simship and DITA.

Calling all ATA and OASIS Members

LISA, the ATA (American Translators' Association) and OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards) have enjoyed a history of cooperation and collaboration on topics of mutual interest, so we are happy to announce a special discount for both ATA and OASIS Members who attend the Summit. ATA and OASIS members will receive the same discounted pricing as LISA members. The ATA will also recognize attendance at the Summit or any of its professional skills workshops, towards ATA Continuing Education Points (CEPs). (Check out the OASIS Symposium, to be held April 25-29 in New Orleans (USA).

Don’t miss the very special workshop during the summit, Understanding Content Management and Global Translation Management Systems: Analyses of Technologies, Functionalities and End-user Implementation. It will be presented by two global content management veterans, Alison Toon from HP and Andrew Draheim from the World Bank. (For more background information on why Toon and Draheim put together this workshop, read Don’t Reinvent the Wheel: Two Global Content Warriors Show You the Way.

That’s it for this month. Don't forget to write to us at editor@lisa.org. See you in Boston next month!