Running head VIRTUAL WORKFORCE1VIRTUAL WORKFORCE 2.docx

Running head: VIRTUAL WORKFORCE 1
VIRTUAL WORKFORCE 2
Virtual Workforce
Name
Institution
Virtual Workforce
Question 1
Dr Marsh has put into perspective some academic and
practitioner viewpoints that could apply to his scenario. First,
he is a researcher. He goes ahead to research how best he can
solve the issues at hand. He understands that running the
organization requires more than just the leadership in him.
Other aspects need to be addressed.
In his research, Dr Marsh goes ahead to find out that employee
engagement is one of the core issues that he needs to
understand. The more employees are satisfied with their work,
the more they become engaged with their tasks. Their level of
engagement determines the effectiveness of the employees in

their places of work. Employees fully engaging in their jobs can
meet the levels of performance expected of them.
Question 2
If I were in the doctor’s position, I could have used the Gallup’s
seminal work. This is because his approach is very elaborate
and not only does it deal with the theoretical research part of it
but also goes empirical. Leadership within the organization
requires that the management understands their employees both
when they are at work and off duty.
Gallup, on the other hand, has been able to introduce the three
types of employees available at the places of work. These are;
engaged, not-engaged, and the actively disengaged employees.
How the employee behaves enables the manager to understand
their level of engagement at their places of work (McKeen et al.
2003). It, therefore, becomes easy for the leadership of the
organization to determine the performance level of their
employees with ease.
Question 3
Implementing effective communication both at the top
leadership and at the ground level is the other strategy I could
have used in dealing with the issues ahead. Communication is
key to maintaining contact between the mother organization and
the virtual employees who barely know who they are working
for. There are better ways of ensuring effective communication
in such an organization.
Weekly reports are important. The management at the lower
levels should engage their employees by asking them to provide
them with reports that they later disburse to the top
management. In this way, the management shall be able to
determine the level of engagement between those working at the
ground level and the mother organization.
Performance shall also be effectively measured through
communication. Employees need to be engaged in such
communications as weekly reports. Whatever they communicate
to the management reflects on how well they are performing
their duties (Lojeski et al. 2008). The fact that convening a

meeting with these employees is next to impossible is made
possible by the reports they write. These reports highlight what
the employees feel should be improved by the company to
enable them to work efficiently.
References
McKeen, J. D., & Smith, H. (2003). Making IT happen: critical
issues in IT management. Wiley.
Lojeski, K. S., & Reilly, R. R. (2008). Uniting the virtual
workforce: Transforming leadership and innovation in the
globally integrated enterprise (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Villarreal, M. C., Goldsman, D., & Keskinocak, P. (2015).
Workforce Management and Scheduling Under Flexible
Demand. Service Science, 7(4), 331-351.
Running head: VIRTUAL WORKFORCE
1
Virtual Workforce
Name
Institution

Running head: VIRTUAL WORKFORCE 1
Virtual Workforce
Name
Institution
Sheet1StudioMOVIEG-SuccessPG SuccessPG-13
SuccessGPGPG-13RNRComp+Comp. MedComp LowStar
A+/AStar MedStar InsignTech Effect+Tech. MediumTech
LowSequel#Screens OriginalAdj. #of Scr<500500-10001000-
15001500-20002000-2800>2800BO Gross<1M1M-10M10M-
20M20M-40M40M-65M65M-100M100M-150M150M-
200M>200MFlopSuccessBuena vistaSpirited

away000100000010011000151100000$5,523,342010000000104
64-
4DimensionImpostor0000010000100100101870000100$6,114,2
3701000000010Fox search lightKissing jessica
stein000000100100010010319100000$7,022,9400100000001020
th century foxKung Pow: Enter the
fist0000010000100100102478000010$16,033,55600100000010S
onyThe mothman
prophecies0000010000101000102331000010$35,228,696000100
00010Warner Bros.The salton
sea00000010001001001030100000$676,69810000000010Sony
classicsSon of the
bride00000010010001001014100000$624,15310000000010Sony
classicsCrush000000100010010010117100000$1,080,07201000
000010Sony classicsMy wife is an
actress00000010100001001038100000$1,054,76301000000010
USAThe kid stays in the
picture00000010100001001056100000$1,434,43601000000010L
ions GateState
property00000010001001001075100000$2,099,71901000000010
Sony classicsThirteen conversations about one
thing00000010100001001068100000$3,287,43501000000010Li
ons GateThe cat's
meow000001000010010010153100000$3,176,93601000000010
MiramaxItalian for
beginners00000010001001001099100000$4,447,1860100000001
0MGM/UANo such thing
(Monster)0000001001000100109100000$60,00610000000010Fi
ne
lineInvincible00000100001001001039100000$80,636100000000
10Magic lampAmy's
orgasm0000001001000100106100000$119,66410000000010Son
y classicsBeijing
bicycle0000010000100100109100000$157,27910000000010US
ANever
again00000010100001001035100000$295,46810000000010Para

mount ClassicsThe triumph of
love00000100001001001051100000$446,94210000000010Artist
ic licenseHow to kill your neighbours
dog0000001000100100106100000$48,56410000000010Miramax
Stolen
summer01001000010001001013100000$119,84110000000010Li
ons GateThe weight of
water00000010100001001027100000$102,62210000000010Inno
vationsHansel and
gretel01001000001001001059100000$100,47710000000010War
ner Bros.A walk to
remember0000100000100100102420000010$41,227,069000010
00001ParamountOrange
county0000010000100100102317000010$41,032,915000010000
01Buena vistaSnow
dogs0000100000100110002454000010$81,150,69200000100001
SonySpider
man0010010010000101003876000001$403,706,3750000000010
120th century foxStar wars: Episode
||0000100010001010013161000001$310,426,98100000000101N
ew lineLord of the rings: the two
towers0010010001000101013622000001$308,821,30600000000
101Warner Bros.Harry potter and the chamber of
secrets0000100010000101013682000001$258,898,10200000000
101IFC filmsMy big fat greek
wedding0000100000100100102016000010$236,448,6970000000
0101Buena
vistaSigns0010010001010000103453000001$227,959,55000000
000101New lineAustin powers in
goldmember0010010010000100113613000001$213,079,163000
00000101SonyMen in black
20000010010001001013641000001$190,418,802000000010012
0th century foxIce
age0000100001000110003345000001$176,387,40500000001001
MGM/UADie another
day0000010010001000103377000001$158,626,84900000001001

Warner Bros.Scooby-
doo1001000010000101003447000001$153,288,1820000000100
1Buena
vistaLilo&Stitch0000100010000110003222000001$145,771,527
00000010001DreamworksCatch me if you
can0000010001001000103225000001$144,962,12400000010001
SonyXXX0000010001001000103536000001$141,204,01600000
010001Buena vistaSanta clause 2: The
mrs.clause1001000010000100113352000001$139,136,75900000
01000120th century foxMinority
report0000010010010000103001000001$132,014,112000000100
01DreamworksThe
ring0000010000100100102927000001$128,288,6310000001000
1Buena vistaSweet home
alabama0000010000100100103313000001$126,868,6420000001
0001SonyMr.Deeds0000010010001000103239000001$126,203,
32000000010001UniversalThe bourne
identity0000010010000100102663000010$121,468,9600000001
0001ParamountThe sum of all
fears0000000110001000103230000001$118,471,320000000100
01Universal8
Mile0000001010000100102585000010$116,134,9150000001000
1DreamworksThe road to
perdition0000001010001000102332000010$104,054,514000000
10001SonyThe panic
room0000001001001000103119000001$95,308,3670000010000
1SonyMaid in
manhattan0000010001000100103050000001$91,082,447000001
00001UniversalRed
dragon0000001000101000103363000001$92,930,005000001000
01UniversalThe scorpion
king0000010000100101003466000001$90,341,67000000100001
DimensionSpy kids 2: The island of lost
dreams0000100001000101013307000001$85,570,368000001000
01New lineBlade
20000001001001001012707000010$81,645,15200000100001All

ianceMen with
brooms000000100010010010207100000$4,239,7670100000001
0MPIEnigma000000100010010010115100000$4,298,329010000
00010Warner Bros.Adventures of pluto
nash0000010001001001002320000010$4,411,10201000000010
MGM/UAIgby goes
down000000100010010010156100000$4,681,50301000000010S
onySlackers0000001000100100101893000100$4,814,244010000
00010MGM/UAEvelyn010010000100010010137100000$1,341,1
5101000000010ArtisanRoger
dodger00000010001001001061100000$1,260,76101000000010S
ony classicsDogtown and z-
boys00000100001001001070100000$1,293,29501000000010Mir
amaxPinocchio0001000001000100101195001000$3,673,005010
00000010MiramaxRabbit proof
fence010010001000010010144100000$2,982,69101000000010
MiramaxFull
frontal000000100100100010214100000$2,506,44601000000010
MiramaxComedian000000100010010010244100000$2,744,2530
1000000010MiramaxPaid in
full000000100010010010273100000$3,042,18801000000010So
ny classicsSunshine
state00000100100001001079100000$3,064,35601000000010Str
andThe
cockettes0000001010000100103100000$218,94710000000010Fi
rst
lookSkins00000010001001001013100000$238,98710000000010
Paramount classicsWho is cletis
tout00000010100001001033100000$252,22710000000010Mira
maxWaking up in
reno000000100010010010197100000$261,60310000000010War
ner Bros.Welcome to
collinwood00000010001010001021100000$333,9761000000001
0IDPLittle
secrets010010000100010010366100000$405,18210000000010I
DP/FireworksThe

believer00000010100001001013100000$406,03510000000010I
DP/FireworksThe man from elysian
fields00000010001001001050100000$1,431,62501000000010Ar
tisanStanding in the shadows of
motown01001000100001001059100000$1,475,20101000000010
ThinkfilmDangerous lives of altar
boys000000101000100010125100000$1,779,28401000000010So
ny classicsAuto
focus000000100010010010461100000$2,062,06601000000010L
ions
GateSecretary000000100010010010149100000$3,984,60101000
000010DreamworksHollywood
ending000001001000010010772010000$4,839,38301000000010
SonyFormula
510000001000101000101857000100$5,204,00701000000010Un
iversalThe truth about
charlie000001000010010010755010000$5,293,52501000000010
Universal focusThe
pianist000000100100010010320100000$6,008,69101000000010
New marketReal women have
curves000000010010010010163100000$5,677,04301000000010
Lions GateThe rules of
attraction0000001000100100101437001000$6,525,76201000000
010MiramaxConfessions of a dangerous
mind0000001001001000101776000100$6,332,67601000000010
MGM/UADeuces
wild0000001010000100101480001000$6,044,61801000000010
Warner Bros.Femme
fatale0000001010000100101066001000$6,592,10301000000010
Buena vistaMoonlight
mile000001000010100010437100000$6,785,93901000000010So
nyTrapped0000001000100100102227000010$6,916,8690100000
0010Buena vistaBig
trouble0000010000100100101961000100$7,262,2880100000001
0Warner Bros.Death to
smoochy0000001001001000102164000010$8,355,81501000000

010MiramaxUndisputed0000001001001000101117001000$12,3
98,62800100000010New lineKnockaround
guys0000001000101000101806000100$11,632,42000100000010
Warner Bros.The powerpuff girls
movie0001000010000110002340000010$11,411,644001000000
10ParamountAbandon0000010000100100102347000010$10,719
,36700100000010Buena vistaSorority
boys0000001001000100101801000100$10,198,76600100000010
USAPossession000000100100010010619010000$10,103,647001
00000010New
lineSimone0000010001001000101920000100$9,680,913010000
00010Buena vistaThe 25th
hour000000100100010010495100000$9,586,59401000000010Li
ons
GateNarc000000100100010010822010000$8,535,636010000000
10Lions
GateFrailty0000001000100100101497001000$13,103,82800100
000010DimensionWes Craven presentes:
They0000001010000100101623000100$12,693,6210010000001
0New lineJason
X0000001000100101001879000100$12,610,73100100000010So
nyThe sweetest
thing0000001000100100102670000010$24,430,2720001000001
0Sony8 crazy
nights0000010010000110002503000010$23,443,124000100000
10MiramaxFrida000000100010010010794010000$22,832,70400
010000010Warner Bros.City by the
sea0000001000101000102575000010$22,433,91500010000010P
aramountMartin lawrence live:
Runteldat000000100100100010774010000$19,184,01500100000
010Buena vistaTuck
everlasting0100100000100100101460001000$19,136,92700100
000010MGM/UAHart's
war0000001000110000102459000010$19,076,81500100000010
ParamountThe four
fathers0000011000100100102187000010$18,306,166001000000

10SonyPunch-Drunk
love0000001000101000101293001000$17,791,03100100000010
MGM/UABowling for
columbine000000100010010010248100000$17,565,3970010000
0010UniversalEmpire000000100100010010869010000$17,504,5
9500100000010Warner Bros.Eight legged
freaks0000010010000101002530000010$17,266,505001000000
10Fox SearchlightAntwone
fisher0000010001001000101021001000$17,141,5210010000001
0Buena vistaThe country
bears0001000010000101002553000010$16,998,9960010000001
0ParamountServing
sara0000010001000100102174000010$16,930,18500100000010
Warner Bros.White
oleander0000010000100100101510000100$16,346,1220010000
0010SonyHalf past
dead0000010010001000102113000010$15,361,53700100000010
20th century
foxSolaris0000010010001001002406000010$14,906,981001000
0001020th century foxLife or something like
it0000010000100100102607000010$14,448,58900100000010Un
iversalDragonfly0000010000101000102507000010$30,063,8050
001000001020th century
foxSwimfan0000010000100100102860000001$28,563,92600010
000010MGMCrocodile hunter: collision
course0100100010000100102525000010$28,399,192000100000
10Fox SearchlightBrown
sugar0000010000100100101378001000$27,362,7120001000001
0Warner Bros.Blood
work0000001001001000102525000010$26,199,5170001000001
0ArtisanJonah: A veggietales
movie0001000000100110001625000100$25,571,351000100000
10New lineAll about the
benjamins0000001001000100101519000100$25,482,931000100
0001020th century foxThe
transporter0000010000100100102610000010$25,296,447000100

00010UniversalThe emperor's
club000001001000010010811010000$14,060,95000100000010F
ox SearchlightThe good
girl000000100100010010688010000$14,015,78600100000010S
onyStealing
harvard0000010000100100102366000010$13,973,53200100000
010ParamountThe
hours000001000100100010548010000$13,868,75400100000010
ParamountHey Arnold! The
movie0100100010000110002534000010$13,684,949001000000
10Warner Bros.Juwanna
mann0000010010000100101325001000$13,571,8170010000001
0Warner
Bros.Feardotcom0000001001000100102550000010$13,208,0230
0100000010New lineFriday after
next0000001010000100101621000100$32,872,56600010000010
Warner Bros.Murder by
numbers0000001000101000102663000010$31,874,86900010000
010Warner Bros.Analyze
that0000001001001000102635000010$31,824,06300010000010
Fox SearchlightOne hour
photo0000001001001000101332001000$31,597,1310001000001
0Warner Bros.Queen of the
damned0000001000100101002511000010$30,307,80400010000
01020th century foxThe banger
sisters0000001000100100102738000010$30,306,281000100000
10DimensionHalloween:
Resurrection0000001010000100102094000010$30,259,6520001
0000010Buena vistaBad
company0000010010001000102944000001$30,157,0160001000
0010ParamountWe were
soldiers0000001001010001003143000001$78,120,19600000100
001Miramax40 Days and 40
nights0000001001000100102399000010$37,939,782000100000
10New lineAbout
Schmidt0000001001000100101236001000$37,745,47500010000

010ParamountClockstoppers0100100001000101002563000010$
36,085,50100010000010Paramountk-19: The
widowmaker0000010010010001002830000001$36,168,6770001
0000010Buena
vistaHotchick0000010001001000102246000010$33,858,304000
10000010ParamountCrossroads000001000010010010238100001
0$37,188,66700010000010Warner
Bros.Showtime0000010001010000102917000001$37,948,76200
010000010Buena vistaThe
rookie1001000001000100102543000010$75,597,042000001000
01MGM/UABarbershop0000010000100100102176000010$75,07
4,95000000100001DreamworksSpirit: Stallion of the
cimarron1001000000110003362000001$73,215,3100000010000
1Warner Bros.Divine secrets of ya ya
sisterhood0000010010001000102507000010$69,586,544000001
00001Warner
Bros.Insomnia0000001010010000102610000010$67,263,182000
00100001ParamountChanging
lanes0000001000101000102642000010$66,790,2480000010000
1MiramaxGangs of
newyork0000001001001000102340000010$65,377,8940000010
0001SonyStuart little
20000100010000110013282000001$64,736,11400001000001Dr
eamworksThe time
machine0000010001000101002958000001$56,684,81900001000
001ParamountJackass: The
movie0000001000100101002532000010$64,267,897000010000
01Buena vistaThe count of monte
cristo0000010000100100102211000010$54,228,1040000100000
120th century
foxUnfaithful0000001010001000102624000010$52,752,475000
0100000120th century
foxDrumline0000010001000100101837000100$54,493,5930000
1000001DreamworksThe
tuxedo0000010000101000103022000001$50,189,179000010000
01Buena vistaReturn to

neverland1001000000100110002626000010$48,423,368000010
00001Buena vistaReign of
fire0000010010000101002629000010$43,060,56600001000001
ParamountStar trek:
Nemesis0000010001000110002711000010$42,692,17500001000
001MGM/UAWindtalkers0000001010001000102898000001$40,
911,8300000100000120th century foxHigh
crimes0000010000101000102747000010$41,543,207000010000
01UniversalAbout a
boy0000010010000100101756000100$40,566,65500001000001
UniversalBlue
crush0000010001000100103015000001$40,118,4200000100000
1SonyMaster of
disguise0000100001000100102568000010$40,363,53000001000
001Warner Bros.Collateral
damage0000010000110000102824000001$40,048,33200001000
001SonyResident
evil0000001001000101002528000010$39,532,30800010000010
SonyEnough0000010010000100102623000010$39,177,2150001
0000010UniversalUndercover
brother0000010010000100102169000010$38,230,435000100000
105104102068

Leading a Virtual Organization: Conclusions
Program Transcript
CRAIG MARSH, PHD: Right. So what I'm going to do in this
final section, is talk
about some of the effects, or impacts, of those changes that I've
described in the
case, so far, and then talk a bit about were I to have my time
again, what I would
have done differently. Because of course, nothing is a complete
success. And
there are some things I think that didn't go so well as I
originally intended, or had
different consequences. So I'll talk a little bit about those. And
then you can
reflect on them yourself, and what you would have done in my
situation.
So one of the things we did, as I mentioned, was we measured
our performance
in a number of different ways. And I had some key indicators on
my dashboard
that I was looking at to see that things were moving in the right
direction. So we
measured the engagement of our customers. And we measured

them through
something that you may be familiar with, a Net Promoter Score.
And that simply
means, when you ask them the question, would you promote us
as an
organization, and our product, outside to others, or not? The
difference between
those who say they would promote you, and those who wouldn't,
can be
expressed as a score.
And of course, by and large, a positive score means that more
people are
prepared to promote you than those who aren't. And our Net
Promoter Score
increased from a negative score, to a score of plus 33, over the
18 months that
this project was being implemented. So that was really, for me,
a critical measure
of our success, that things were moving in the right direction,
and one I was very
pleased with.
Now what may be called somewhat more input measures, I think
also moved in
the right direction. So one is productivity of the staff that I was
managing. Now
one measure of productivity was, how many service
interventions. Remember,
they were contracted staff. So how many service interventions
were they making
over an annual period, over a year, at the beginning of this
process, versus 18
months into this process? Now at the beginning of this process,
actually, in this
case, two years.

At the beginning of this process, they were making on average,
something like
1.2 service interventions per year. So it was a very dispersed,
very sparsely
organized, and actually relatively disconnected organization. By
the end of two
years, that number had gone up to 5.2. So we had a far more
engaged workforce
than we had at the start of the process. So that for me, was also
very satisfying,
and a very large increase, and a very great success, I think, in
that case.
And the third thing that I measured, was one that I'm sure
everyone will be
familiar with, which is length of service. Now length of service
is normally talked
about in employee terms. These were not employees. But I was
measuring how
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 1

long they were staying with us, as an example of their loyalty,
and their
engagement with us as an organization.
So the length of service of these employees went up from, in the
region of 1 and
1/2 years on average, at the start of this process. And over two
years, that
increased dramatically. Now over two years, it increased to 2.7
years length of
service. When I left this organization, the end of last year, had
it increased to
over 4 years average length of service. So that was a dramatic
increase.
So those were three indicators that showed that on the whole,
things were
moving very much in the direction that I had intended What I
will now do is talk
about some of the things that perhaps went less well, or that I
would want to do
slightly differently, were I to go through the whole process

again. Because there
were elements that didn't work as well as I expected them.
So the first element was, I mentioned my idea of having a vision
or a galvanizing
idea as a really critical part of the way we engage with our
frontline service
professionals. That, I think, proved very difficult. I had the
idea. It was, I think,
quite clearly communicated at the outset. I worked hard with my
leadership
structure to make sure they bought into the idea.
We put it into our discussions. We talked a lot about how we
would implement it,
practically. Because having an idea is one thing. But actually
doing it is
something else. We had a lot of discussions when we first came
up with the idea.
And I think what happened, we didn't revisit it enough. It wasn't
really at the
forefront of everything that we did, in all of our
communications. It really didn't
operate as the galvanizing idea for all of our work, and all of
our interactions with
our service professionals.
So I think what I would have preferred to have done, is to spend
more time
thinking, not just about the idea itself and how we
communicated it, but how we
sustained that vision, or that idea, over a much longer period,
such that it
affected everything that we did. So that's the first thing I think
that I would have

reconsidered, if I had my time over again.
I think the second thing that I would have reconsidered over
that period, was the
training and development of my front line leaders. I already
mentioned to you that
I felt that was a really critical component of the leadership
challenge that I was
faced. But I think there were some elements where people didn't
quite get that
coaching idea that I've referred to already. So I think I would
have probably put
more time and resources, and perhaps more measures in place,
to make sure
that those coaching ideals in my frontline staff, which I really
believed in at the
time, and still firmly believe in, were really integral created,
and really translated
into the behavior of those front line leaders.

I had some examples, where I think people were still being a
little too directive,
and a little too authoritarian, at the front end of the
organization. And that's
something that I would have liked to have corrected sooner.
And the third thing is, I think touches on a really interesting
principle, as a leader,
about how you go about implementing and developing these
things. And really,
there are two slightly different aspects to it. So the first aspect
of this, is when
you're putting in place, particularly structures, almost by
definition, they're very
static, now particularly performance management structures or
key performance
indicators.
What I would prefer to have done, is rather than building what I
thought was an
effective, but nevertheless static structure, is to build in a
process of continuous
improvement of that performance management structure, and of
those KPIs.

Such that, we were effectively doing what, in research terms,
would be called AB
testing.
So we would try something. We would put it in place. We would
get the feedback
of our frontline staff. And then we would adjust and improve
those indicators
based on that feedback. So I didn't build in that process of
continuous
improvements and feedback, into the structures that I had
created.
And that meant that there were occasions when they became out
of date. And I
was seeing indicators that really were less useful, because of the
fact that the
organization had moved on. But the structure itself had stayed
the same.
And the other aspect of that third part, in terms of the
performance indicators, is
the involvement, to the extent possible, of the people who will
be affected by
them. And that is your frontline service professionals, and your
employees. And I
think the extent to which you can have those people build, work
with you, to build
create develop and manage those structures, the better they are
in actually doing
what you want them to do, which is to managing their
performance. So to
essentially own them, much more than if you simply impose
them on.
Now I did that to some extent, but I think I could have worked

harder to make
sure that my people and my customers were involved in the very
structures that I
was putting in place themselves. That was I think something
else that I learned
from, and is also, if you like, a theory in use, which I had at the
time. But I reflect
on probably I didn't work on as much as I should have done.
Additional Content Attribution
Music:
Creative Support Services
Los Angeles, CA
Dimension Sound Effects Library
Newnan, GA

Narrator Tracks Music Library
Stevens Point, WI
Signature Music, Inc
Chesterton, IN
Studio Cutz Music Library
Carrollton, TX

Leading a Virtual Organization: Performance Management
Program Transcript
CRAIG MARSH, PHD: So the third thing that I'd like to share
with you is
performance management. Now as you'll appreciate on a large,
relatively large
structure of around 500 individuals who are all over the world,
one of my key
challenges was really knowing how well they were doing. Now I
did put in, as I
mentioned, a leadership structure.
So I was getting feedback from-- informal feedback and
qualitative feedback from
my leaders about how things were going generally. But that
really wasn't enough.
In order to provide a really excellent service across all of those
global areas,
what I really needed was something that allowed me quickly to
capture how
things were going in those contact areas, in those service
interventions. And to
be able to use those data for business decisions.
And by the way, I'll mention that there are a number of issues
with data driven or
metrics driven performance management systems, which you'll
probably
appreciate. I mean, one of the critical ones is unintended
consequences that
you'll motivate behavior, or you'll incentivize behavior in a way

which is quite
crude. And which way results actually, in people doing the
opposite things to
what you really want them to do. But they meet your metrics. So
I was very much
aware and I was somewhat skeptical about how effective
performance metrics
could be. So these were the sorts of things that I was thinking
through when
establishing this system that I really needed to know what was
happening.
So the first thing I did was to establish a system that would
operate for me at,
what I would call organizational level. Now, the organizational
level system was
essentially a dashboard. So I was able to collect an enormous
amount of data
from those service interventions of my front-line professionals.
And what I did
was to create a one page process with seven or eight of those
key metrics
summarized from right across the organization. That dashboard
was used by me
to keep up to date weekly on what was happening.
I developed a system which was very straightforward. A traffic
light system red,
yellow, and green. So that once indicators moved to a certain
level, I could see at
a glance whether something was working really well, moving in
the direction that
I needed. Whether it was something that really where there was
a problem, that
needed immediate attention. Or whether there was something
that looked like it

was, perhaps just trending in the wrong direction and was going
to need some
attention fairly soon. And what we did was establish a process
of executive
review of that.
So I was monitoring them weekly. But, three times a year we
had the entire
executive team in, where we would review those high level
dashboards in order
to see how the organization was progressing generally. And
more importantly, to

make decisions which were based on some of those indicators
that we were
seeing.
And the second part of the structure was where we were able to
be a little bit
more nimble or reactive to some of the indicators. And that was
the business unit
level. So in each service area, we were able to create a slightly
more
sophisticated report, more detailed report. Based on a similar
sort of structure,
based on the same data but where business unit leaders could
actually use
those data in response to them a little more quickly. Now what
was critical about
that response wasn't that when they saw something red that it
was going wrong.
Because, the way I phrased it to them was, that simply raises a
question that you
need to answer. It doesn't present the answer itself. And that's
really critical in
terms of managing these data driven performance systems. That
when you see
an indicator like that you don't think that something has gone
wrong, but simply
that it may be telling you that something is heading in the
wrong direction, which
you then need to investigate.

And the investigation really, was the third part of the structure
which is the
individual level. So each of those service professionals, for
every service
intervention they made with our customers, they were able to
see pretty quickly
after the intervention a report which told them how they'd done
in that particular
circumstance. And that was comprised of data from the IT
systems. It was
comprised of data which was a collection of feedback from our
customers. So we
were able to quantify that feedback and put it into the system.
And it actually was
based on some of their own feedback, so they were able to
contribute to it
themselves.
And of course what that information also provided was for those
first-line leaders
that I had appointed to be able to see how their teams were
doing. And that was
where, really, the final and critical part came in the
performance management
system. What I'd done was train these first-line leaders as
coaches. And what
that means is that you don't direct. When you see some data that
seems to be
going wrong in your team, what you do is you use that data for
a coaching
intervention. To investigate, first of all. See what's happening.
Gain the feedback
of that service professional. And then work with them to take
actions and develop
solutions to whatever it is that you overcome. So it's a
combination. It's not

simply using the data on its own. It's a combination of those
data and the
leadership, or coaching function, of those front line leaders.
Music:
Los Angeles, CA
Newnan, GA
Stevens Point, WI
Chesterton, IN

Carrollton, TX
Leading a Virtual Organization: Leadership
Program Transcript

[MUSIC PLAYING]
CRAIG MARSH: So the next thing that I wanted to discuss with
you which clearly
is central to this case is leadership. Now as you know the
challenge was in the
context of a global organization, a virtual organization. And
people who are not
directly employed by the company, they're contracting
employees, I've already
mentioned a little bit about engagement. Well, for me, one of
the critical
challenges was leadership. So this was in a sense one of my
biggest challenges,
to try and work out for myself what I felt effective leadership
was. And then to
understand how I would deliver that in the context of this
somewhat unique
structure that I was managing.
So the first thing I did is I decided that the context of the
remote organization, of
the remotely contracted people was in some ways only an
indirect problem. That
actually at the heart of leadership are some very basic ideas
which I felt should
be effective regardless of the particular situation that the
leadership has
demonstrated. And I was thinking of leadership in three very
particular ways. And
those ways are leadership as individual or leadership as
personal qualities or
characteristics. Leadership as a particular role. And leadership
as a structure. Let
me take first of all leadership as a role.

I felt that in order to achieve effective engagement of my front
line service
professionals I really needed to concentrate very had on what I
called operational
or what might be termed first line of leadership. So in other
words, the people
who were actually leading the service professionals in their
tasks. For me, an
absolutely critical level of leadership in the organization. One
that is regularly
neglected. So one of the things I did was to make sure that I
concentrated hard
on finding, recruiting, training, and developing a card of
operational leaderships
on the ratio of about one leader to every 10 service
professionals. And what I
didn't do was make a classic error of organizations which is to
promote people
who are simply good at their jobs. Because the qualities of an
effective leader at
that level are actually very different from the qualities of an
expert in a particular
discipline or role, which I'm sure you'll appreciate from your
own organizations.
The second thing I did was think about leadership as a structure.
Now I've
already mentioned that I spent some time working on those as
individuals. Well, I
more or less bypassed the rest of my organizational structure. I
had department
heads and division heads. But what I did was concentrate on
those leaders on
recruiting them and treating them as one group or team. So I
created structures

whereby they could compare notes. They could share resources.
And they could
develop their own card or feeling of teamwork, remember,
across the world. So I
didn't worry about where they were located. I didn't worry about
necessarily
where I recruited them from as long as they were effective in
that particular role.

The third aspect was the personal aspect of leadership. And this
is the one that's
written about most, I think, in leadership studies. So let me
spend a little bit of
time on that because I think it's critical. So what was I actually
looking for in
developing amongst those first line leaders? And in a word that
skill was
coaching. Now coaching is both a process, a method for the way
that you go
about leading your people, but it's also a principle or a
particular style or culture
of leadership. And what I mean by that is coaching is about
making sure that
you're not telling people what to do, making sure that you're not
directing or at
least you're minimizing the direction. But what you are doing is
making sure that
your people themselves are the ones who are coming up with the
solutions to the
challenges and the problems that they're faced with every day.
And that's
culturally and, from a perspective of principle for me, a really
critical aspect of
effective leadership.
And I simply decided that everything that I've read about
cultures, about virtual
organizations, about leadership itself boil down to that as being
the most effective
style of leadership that I needed. So I spent a lot of time making
sure that my
leaders were effective coaches. In order, as I've been saying
earlier, to make
sure the front line people were engaged and indulging in what I

described earlier
as discretionary effort with our customers.
Music:
Los Angeles, CA
Newnan, GA
Stevens Point, WI
Chesterton, IN
Carrollton, TX

Leading a Virtual Organization: Introduction
Program Transcript
NARRATOR: Dr. Craig Marsh is a business executive with over
25 years of
experience in organizational leadership, development, and
change across a
number of industries. In this case study, Craig will present a
real world leadership
challenge based on his professional experience that will allow
you to place
yourself in the same situation and to explore in-depth some of
the questions that
inevitably arise. Would you have made the same decisions?
What does the case
tell you about the nature of the modern organization and its
opportunities for
value creation, as well as its limits? And what are the questions
it raises for both
senior and front-line leadership in the 21st century?

DR. CRAIG MARSH: Hello, I'm Dr. Craig Marsh. And I'm here
to introduce you to
a real leadership challenge that I was faced with four or five
years ago. This
leadership challenge was based on a structure, which was a
virtual organization
of an organization that was globally dispersed and an
organization which I was
taking over at the time.
At the heart of this situation were two critical constructs. And
by constructs I
mean an idea that has different meanings to it where the
meanings themselves
aren't entirely understood or established. And that'll become
important in a
couple of minutes to you. Those two ideas, or constructs, were
employee
engagement and also the idea of performance management.
Now, what's really important is that you read, in your
classroom, the case study
guide. What the case study guide will give you are my thoughts
and my own
research on these ideas that are going to present to you in the
case. What it will
also give you are some of the facts about the case because what
I'm not going to
do is spend my time talking to you about all of the details of the
situation that I
was presented with.
So once you've read those, you'll get an idea of what I call my
own theory and
use. So what I do is not only do I lead organizations, but I've

also researched,
read, and written about them. So I've developed my ideas and
my constructs
about what we mean by employee engagement, performance
management, and
leadership. And it's really important that you, as doctoral
candidates, do the same
such that when you're confronted with a situation you've formed
your own ideas
about what subjects such as leadership, performance
management, and
engagement really mean.
Four years ago, I took over a business unit that consisted almost
entirely of
people working virtually. I had nearly 500 people working for
me, who lived all
over the world and worked remotely. They were all directly
customer facing. And
most significant, they were not employed directly by my
organization, but were
contracted to us, mostly on a part-time basis.

To provide some context, our organization had grown rapidly
over the previous
four or five years and was confronting a classic consequence of
that growth, a
start-up culture now requiring scalable structures and processes
to ensure that
growth and service standards were maintained consistently. As a
leader, I
inherited very little structure other than some early attempts at
putting in place
performance indicators and some quality standards, as well as
some established
central units that supported me for monitoring service quality. I
also had a small
group of divisional directors reporting to me, each of whom
were in charge of
sub-unit of my structure with specific and differentiated
customer value
propositions.

So one of my biggest challenges was the very loose structure of
contracted
service professionals who provided the main value work to our
customers. These
service professionals were highly educated and experienced,
multinational, and
worked remotely from anywhere in the world. There were also
mainly part-time
and had a tenuous connection to the company. Legally, there
were strict
constraints on treating them as employees for fear of violating
local tax laws.
Because of this, it was very challenging to promote employee
engagement and
build trust across the team, accurately evaluate performance for
all staff, and
establish an appropriate leadership structure for this unique
situation. I faced a
number of questions and set myself the following three key
challenges. First of
all, how do I introduce a culture of engagement? Secondly, how
do I create an
effective process for performance management? And then,
thirdly, how do I build
a leadership structure appropriate for my particular
circumstances?
Music:
Los Angeles, CA

Newnan, GA
Stevens Point, WI
Chesterton, IN
Carrollton, TX
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 9
DDBA 8151 Case Study Guide
Part 1: Theoretical Foundations
Employee Engagement: Researchers’ Perspective

Kahn (1990) approached the issue of employee engagement by
drawing on theory of
self and how different selves interact with the roles people need
to play at their
workplace. He postulated that “People can use varying degrees
of their selves,
physically, cognitively, and emotionally, in the roles they
perform, even as they maintain
the integrity of the boundaries between who they are and the
roles they occupy.
Presumably, the more people draw on their selves to perform
their roles within those
boundaries, the more stirring are their performances and the
more content they are with
the fit of the costumes they don” (p. 692). Kahn drew on
research from various
perspectives, such as interpersonal, group, intergroup, and
organizational research, and
combined them with the job-design perspective developed by
Hackman and Oldham
(1980). Kahn’s assumption was that as job design determined
the roles individuals need
to play within a work setting, it was a key determinant of the
“self” elicited from the
employees who play those roles. Job design was hypothesized to
be instrumental in
determining whether an employee will use an engaged or
disengaged self in role. He
defined the two opposite types of engagement as follows:
“Personal engagement [is]
the harnessing of organization members' selves to their work
roles; in engagement,
people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively,
and emotionally during
role performances. . . . Personal disengagement [is] the

uncoupling of selves from work
roles; in disengagement, people withdraw and defend
themselves physically,
cognitively, or emotionally during role performances” (1990, p.
694). Thus, according to
Kahn, engagement is a psychological reaction to the job role
people are required to play
in their work, and it comprises three aspects of such a reaction:
cognitive, affective, and
behavioral.
Rothbard (2001) had a more focused take on the issue of
employee engagement and
proposed two critical components that distinguish an engaged
from a disengaged
employee: attention and absorption. Specifically, attention was
defined as “cognitive
availability and the amount of time one spends thinking about a
role”; while absorption
“means being engrossed in a role and refers to the intensity of
one’s focus on a role” (p.
656). This perspective lays more emphasis on the cognitive
component of engagement
and is more akin to the concept of psychological presence,
dedicated focus on the job,
and being away from any mental distractions that may lower job
performance.
Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) had a different take on
the concept of
engagement and viewed it as the positive end of a continuum,
with job burnout on the
negative end. According to them, as burnout is characterized by
exhaustion, cynicism,
and inefficacy, engagement is its polar opposite with
characteristics of energy,

involvement, and efficacy. Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-
Roma, and Bakker (2002)
went on to define engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work-
related state of mind that is
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p. 74). To
them, such a heightened
state of vigor, dedication, and absorption is neither a
momentary high, nor target
specific, but a highly persistent and pervasive affective
cognitive state.
Thus, we see that besides the obvious similarities there are
slight but extremely
significant differences in which the above-mentioned
researchers have conceptualized
the construct of engagement. For Kahn (1990), job engagement
is pretty role specific,
and it is in fact the role that determines what type of self will be
elicited (engaged versus
disengaged). The state of engagement or burnout is pretty
diffuse and long lasting
(pervasive and not targeted) according to Schaufeli et al.
(2002). However, they agree
on the belief that bad job design may be the contributing factor
for disengagement
(according to Kahn) or burnout (according to Maslach et al.,
2001).
To compound the problem, various definitions of engagement
do not take enough care

to distinguish the concept from other similar constructs such as
job involvement, job
commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).
There are questions
regarding whether engagement is an attitude (having three
components of cognition,
affect, and behavior and similar to the concept of job
satisfaction) or whether it is more
akin to motivation (a heightened state of goal-directed behavior
as in vigor).
Practitioners do not have too much problem with the issue as
long as the construct can
be reliably used to predict and manage team or organizational
performance. In the
following section, we will see how some of the practitioners in
this field have defined
and used the construct of engagement.
Employee Engagement: Practitioners’ Perspective
When it comes to measuring and defining engagement, the
foremost name in the
practitioners’ world is Gallup, Inc., which developed the Gallup
Workplace Audit (GWA,
popularly known as the Q12), a questionnaire used to measure
employee engagement.
It comprises 12 questions, plus an overall satisfaction question
making it a 13-item
questionnaire. The questionnaire items were found to have a
highly significant relation
to unit-level measures of a company’s performance (Harter,
Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002).
Thus, rather than being driven by theory, Gallup’s approach has
been more empirical.
The items in the questionnaire are a measure of attitudinal

outcomes (satisfaction,
loyalty, pride, customer service intent, and intent to stay with
the company) and
measure issues that are within the remit of a supervisor in
charge of a given business
unit. Gallup compiled rich data of employee surveys for over 30
years, and based on
their understanding of employee behavior that had maximal
impact on a firm’s
performance, they defined engagement as “the individual’s
involvement and satisfaction
with as well as enthusiasm for work” (2002, p. 269).
Based on their national survey of U.S. workers using their
engagement questionnaire,
Gallup put forward three types of employees (Krueger &
Killham, 2006):
connection to their
company. They drive innovation and move the company
forward.
-engaged employees are essentially “checked out.” They
are sleepwalking
through their workday, putting time—but not energy or
passion—into their work.
they are busy acting
out their unhappiness. Every day, these workers undermine what

their engaged
coworkers accomplish.
Perrin (2007) has also preferred to rely on survey data and
define employee
engagement in terms of the preferred characteristics that
engaged employees exhibit as
different from the non-engaged employees. Perrin highlights
three key features of an
engaged workforce:
strategic goals, values,
and their “fit” within it (also known as the “Think” sector)
ffective attachment to the organization’s strategic
goals, values, and
their “fit” within it (also known as the “Feel” sector)
in their role (i.e.,
willingness to invest discretionary effort, to “go the extra
mile”) for the
organization (also known as the “Act” sector)
Perrin’s view of employee engagement is similar to that of
Gallup in one major way:
aspects of employee characteristics (cognitive, affective, or
behavioral) that have been
found to enhance the performance of a given business unit.
Some other well-known research and consultancy organizations
too have defined
engagement along similar lines and emphasized the importance

of discretionary effort
as the key outcome or distinguishing feature of an engaged
employee. The Institute of
Employment Studies defined engagement as follows:
A positive attitude held by the employee toward the
organization and its values.
An engaged employee is aware of business context, and works
with colleagues
to improve performance within the job for the benefit of the
organization. The
organization must work to develop and nurture engagement,
which requires a
two-way relationship between employer and employee.
(Robinson, Perryman, &
Hayday, 2004, p. 2)
The Conference Board offers a synthesized definition that sees
employee engagement
as "a heightened emotional connection that an employee feels
for his or her
organization that influences him or her to exert greater
discretionary effort to his or her
work" (Gibbons, 2006, p. 5). This definition of engagement is
derived from the common
scale items used by its various clients to measure the
engagement level of their
employees.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (n.d.)
holds similar views on
employee engagement and refers to it as “a combination of
commitment to the
organization and its values, plus a willingness to help out
colleagues (organizational

citizenship). It goes beyond job satisfaction and is not simply
motivation. Engagement is
something the employee has to offer: it cannot be 'required' as
part of the employment
contract.”
We may say that all the practitioner and consultancy views on
engagement are largely
driven from their respective survey data and are much more
empirical when compared
with how the researchers have approached the construct. The
practitioners look for key
differences in employee surveys between high- and low-
performing business units, and
the items that significantly related to performance form the core
of what they call
engagement. There are two major problems with this approach:
1. Most of these survey-based research tend to infer causality
from their survey
data in a way that their engagement items are presumed to
“cause” performance,
not merely correlated with it. However, there is very little in
their research design
to make such a strong assertion.
2. There is little “construct validity” behind these items being
clubbed under a single
name of engagement as the scale items are not embedded in

theory in the first
place. So, though all the above-mentioned consultancies use
slightly different
items in their measures, they all label it as “engagement.”
Performance Management
Performance management has been regarded for several years
now as a core
management best practice (Osterman, 1994; Pfeffer, 1998). Den
Hartog, Boselie, and
Paauwe (2004) define it thus, making clear the relevance of an
integrated approach to
performance:
“Performance management” has come to signify more than a list
of singular
practices aimed at measuring and adapting employee
performance. Rather, it is
seen as an integrated process in which managers work with their
employees to
set expectations, measure and review results, and reward
performance, in order
to improve employee performance, with the ultimate aim of
positively affecting
organizational success. (p. 556)
It is remarkable, however, how little is still known of the
effects of performance
management techniques on the individual employee (Farndale &
Kelliher, 2013). This
has been a space often referred to in the literature over the years
as the “black box” of

the HR/organization performance relationship (Legge, 2001).
One reason for this
relative dearth of information is the limited amount of research
directed at understanding
implementation of performance management techniques (Guest,
2011). Boselie, Dietz,
and Boon (2005) argued that most studies of the impact of
performance management
practice orient toward the macro, or “managerialist,”
perspective, with a dearth of
studies of the role of the immediate line manager or supervisor
“in the enactment
process” (p. 74). They recommended research oriented
increasingly toward micro
analyses which seek to understand in much greater depth
“employees’ actual
experiences of performance management” (2005, p. 82).
It has also become increasingly recognized that the role of the
first-line manager is
crucial in successful implementation of performance
management practices (Nehles et
al., 2006) or “unlocking the black box” as these practices are
increasingly delegated to
line managers to implement in the modern organization (Purcell
& Hutchinson, 2007).
One such technique of performance management is performance
appraisal, one in
which first-line managers have a central role to play, and one

which is a constant source
of dissatisfaction among managers and employees, despite its
widespread use
(Dusterhoff, Cunningham, & MacGregor, 2014).
Employees' perceptions of fairness and procedural justice play a
key role in employee
outcomes considered crucial to organization success, such as
decision making (Goksoy
& Alayoglu, 2013) and commitment and engagement (Cheng,
2014). The immediate
supervisor of the employee is a key factor in the success of the
process of performance
appraisal, and a critical influence on employee perceptions of
fairness and justice
(Byrne et al., 2012; Sumelius et al., 2014).
Part 2: Leading a Virtual Organization
Dr. Craig Marsh is a business executive with over 25 years of
experience in
organizational leadership, development, and change, across a
number of industries. In
this case study, Craig will present a real-world leadership
challenge based on his
professional experience that will allow you to place yourself in
the same situation and to
explore in-depth some of the questions that inevitably arise:
Would you have made the
same decisions? What does the case tell you about the nature of
the modern
organization and its opportunities for value creation, as well as
its limits? And what are
the questions it raises for both senior and frontline leadership in
the 21st century?

The Case
Five years ago, I took over a business unit that consisted almost
entirely of people
working virtually. I had nearly 500 people working for me who
lived all over the world
and worked remotely. They were all directly customer facing,
and—most significantly—
they were not employed directly by my organization, but were
contracted to us, mostly
on a part-time basis.
To provide some context, our organization had grown rapidly
over the previous 4–5
years and was confronting a classic consequence of that
growth—a start-up culture now
requiring scalable structures and processes to ensure that
growth and service
standards were maintained consistently. As a leader, I inherited
very little structure,
other than some early attempts at putting in place performance
indicators and quality
standards, as well as established central units for monitoring
service quality. I also had
a small group of divisional directors reporting to me, each of
whom were in charge of a
subunit of my structure with specific and differentiated
customer value propositions.
One of my biggest challenges, however, was the very “loose”
structure of contracted
service professionals who provided the main value work to our
customers. These

service professionals were highly educated and experienced,
multinational, working
remotely from anywhere in the world, were mainly part time,
and had a tenuous
connection to the company. Legally, there were strict
constraints on treating them as
employees, for fear of violating local tax laws. Because of this,
it was very challenging to
promote employee engagement and build trust across the team,
accurately evaluate
performance for all staff, and establish an appropriate
leadership structure for this
unique situation. I faced a number of questions and set myself
the following three key
challenges:
1. How do I introduce a culture of engagement?
2. How do I create an effective process for performance
management?
3. How do I build a leadership structure appropriate for my
particular
circumstances?
References

Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and
contradictions in HRM and
performance research. Human Resource Management Journal,
15(3), 67–94.
Byrne, Z. S., Pitts, V. E., Wilson, C. M., & Steiner, Z. J.
(2012). Trusting the fair
supervisor: The role of supervisory support in performance
appraisals. Human
Resource Management Journal, 22(2), 129–147.
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. (n.d.).
CIPD—Championing better
work and working lives. Retrieved from http://www.cipd.co.uk/
Cheng, S. Y. (2014). The mediating role of organizational
justice on the relationship
between administrative performance appraisal practices and
organizational
commitment. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 25(8),
1131–1148.
Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2004).
Performance management: A
model and research agenda. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 556–

569.
Dusterhoff, C., Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. N. (2014).
The effects of
performance rating, leader–member exchange, perceived utility,
and
organizational justice on performance appraisal satisfaction:
Applying a moral
judgment perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(2), 265–
273.
Farndale, E., & Kelliher, C. (2013). Implementing performance
appraisal: Exploring the
employee experience. Human Resource Management, 52(6),
879–897.
Gibbons, J. M. (2006). Employee engagement: A review of
current research and its
implications. New York, NY: The Conference Board.
Goksoy, A., & Alayoglu, N. (2013). The impact of perception of
performance appraisal
and distributive justice fairness on employees' ethical decision
making in
paternalist organizational culture. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 26(1),
57–79.

Guest, D. E. (2011). Human resource management and
performance: Still searching for
some answers. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(1), 3–
13.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign.
Reading, MA.: Addison-
Wesley.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-
unit-level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and
business outcomes:
a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–
279.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal
engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal,
33(4), 692–724.
Krueger, J., & Killham, E. (2006). Why Dilbert is right. Gallup
Management Journal, 9.
Legge, K. (2001). Silver bullet or spent round? Assessing the
meaning of the high

commitment management/performance relationship. Human
Resource
Management: A Critical Text, 2.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job
burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 397–422.
Nehles, A. C., van Riemsdijk, M., Kok, I., & Looise, J. K.
(2006). Implementing human
resource management successfully: A first-line management
challenge. Management Revue, 256–273.
Osterman, P. (1994). How common is workplace transformation
and who adopts
it? Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 47(2), 173–188.
Perrin, T. (2007). Confronting myths: What really matters in
attracting, engaging and
retaining your workforce. Global Workforce Study.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by
putting people first. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business Press.
Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front‐line managers as
agents in the HRM‐

performance causal chain: theory, analysis and evidence.
Human Resource
Management Journal, 17(1), 3–20.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers
of employee
engagement. Institute of Employment Studies, Report 408, p. 2.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics
of engagement in work
and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 655–
684.
doi:10.2307/3094827
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker,
A. B. (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample
confirmatory factor
analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.
Sumelius, J., Björkman, I., Ehrnrooth, M., Mäkelä, K., & Smale,
A. (2014). What
determines employee perceptions of HRM process features? The
case of

performance appraisal in MNC subsidiaries. Human Resource
Management, 53(4), 569–592.

Running head VIRTUAL WORKFORCE1VIRTUAL WORKFORCE 2.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running head VIRTUAL WORKFORCE1VIRTUAL WORKFORCE 2.docx

Similar to Running head VIRTUAL WORKFORCE1VIRTUAL WORKFORCE 2.docx (20)

More from toltonkendal

More from toltonkendal (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running head VIRTUAL WORKFORCE1VIRTUAL WORKFORCE 2.docx