Discussion Overview
The paper by Neeley, titled “Global Teams That Work,” highlights the challenges of managing geographically dispersed teams due to social distance and proposes the SPLIT framework to address them. The framework focuses on five key areas: Structure, Process, Language, Identity, and Technology, each influencing social distance within global teams. Effective management of these areas can make global teams more effective.
Questions & Instructions
- In your experience working in or managing (globally) dispersed teams, which of the 5 key areas of the SPLIT framework–meaning Structure, Process, Language, Identity, and Technology–do you find most important or challenging? How do you (or plan to) address these challenges after this week’s readings? *
* Note: If you have no experience with geographically dispersed teams, you may think of teams that are dispersed because team members work fully remotely or in a hybrid mode in your organization.
Readings:
Chapter 6 in “Build your cultural agility” book (Relationship-building)
Neeley, T. 2015. Global teams that work. Harvard Business Review,
93(10): 7481.
Ibarra, H., & Hunter, M. 2007. How leaders create and use networks.
Harvard Business Review, 85(1): 4047.
examples:
(example 1) Technology has made the world significantly smaller. The ability to video conference at a high level has significantly improved how personable meetings feel. Seeing facial expressions, tone, and reactions reduces social distance in a way that email simply cannot. I think it builds trust faster and allows for more natural interaction. In manufacturing, the ability to send high-quality photos and videos has also transformed troubleshooting. Instead of trying to describe a machine issue over email, we can share detailed visuals in real time, which makes problem-solving across vast distances much more manageable and efficient. In many ways, technology has enabled operational alignment that would have been difficult even several years ago.
At the same time, I think Language is the most challenging aspect. Even when everyone uses English, differences in fluency and communication style can affect participation and influence. More fluent speakers may unintentionally dominate discussions, while others may hesitate to contribute. This can create subtle power imbalances and sometimes causes overall frustration. After this weeks reading, I plan to be more intentional about slowing conversations down, summarizing key points, practicing patience, and directly inviting input from quieter team members to ensure inclusion
(example 2) Question: In your experience working in or managing (globally) dispersed teams, which of the 5 key areas of the SPLIT framework–meaning Structure, Process, Language, Identity, and Technology–do you find most important or challenging? How do you (or plan to) address these challenges after this week’s readings? *
Answer:
In my experience, the most challenging of the SPLIT Framework is Process and the most important dimension is Technology. I had worked in a virtual team supporting Police Departments where the meetings were usually focused on getting tasks completed. We log in and review updates, assign tasks to different team members, and then hop off. It was efficient, and it went well for a while. However, over time, I noticed that some of the team members rarely participated, and they were misunderstanding certain tasks that were getting assigned to them. There were some interactions that happened but they were very informal and we weren’t able to build a strong team connection overall. If I look back at the environment I worked in, I can reflect on what the author Neeley mentioned about the idea of social distance and how it weakens collaboration in global teams.
He emphasized intentionally creating space for informal conversations with the members of the team. We assumed that trust would develop naturally in the team environment, but we were wrong. In dispersed teams, you have to deliberately build trust with other team members. This idea can also be linked with what I learnt from Chapter 6, and how the author Caligiuri emphasized that relationship building is the core competency in any team building environment. Since our working environment was different, I can now realize that we were just focused on getting the tasks completed and not actually on strengthening relationships.
If any interactions happened, they were just purely operational and just for completing the assignments and getting the job done. We never worked on building a broader or strategic connection with others, and that is not something that works well for Global Leaders. Effective leaders have to develop relationships beyond tasks in order to increase influence and gain overall trust.
I think after reading this week’s reading, I plan to build a small personal check-in with individuals who join at the beginning of the meeting. I will also actively invite inputs and ask for feedback from team members who are quiet. I will also schedule one-on-one calls occasionally with members to strengthen relationships with them. To have an effective global team, it’s less about logistics and more about reducing distance through relationship building and bridging gaps.