Communication Currents

New Series, Vol. 1, No. 9 

Globalization, or our increasingly interconnected world, has created a social environment in which working in global teams is possible, but with many considerations that are unique to work in this context. These authors explore connectivity expectations, or normative expectations to be logged in and responsive to online workplace communication channels (e.g., email, instant messaging) outside of working hours—especially due to time zone differences—and related work-life boundary management through the lens of sensemaking. Sensemaking at work occurs when organizational members communicate with other organizational members and their environment to create shared meaning which guides their actions at and in relation to their work.  

Sensemaking occurs in three phases: enactment, selection, and retention. In the enactment phase, organizational members assign meaning to some stimulus (or related stimuli) in their environment (e.g., a supervisor sending or responding to communications late at night). In the selection phase, organizational members make conscious decisions about what information is relevant to the process of meaning-making (e.g., an organizational policy on communication outside of working hours). Finally, the resulting meaning is preserved over time in the retention phase and shapes future acts and decisions by the organizational member (e.g., remaining logged into online communication channels after working hours).  

Connectivity expectations that are normatively outside of working hour has been linked to a variety of negative outcomes including diminished psychological detachment, stress, and decreased physical health, but also benefits some individuals’ work performance and autonomy in some cases. The importance of supervisors and team leaders in communicating and modeling these expectations cannot be overstated as their actions and communication represent larger organizational values, norms, attitudes, and practices by which employees often follow suit. In this way, organizational leaders attempt to interpret and influence the sensemaking process of other employees through sensegiving (e.g., explicitly encouraging employees to log off after their workday is complete). Importantly, both sensemaking and sensegiving are ongoing as organizational members constantly adjust to new information revealed in their daily interactions and, in this case, impact how organizational members segment or integrate their work and other life domains.  

The authors conducted and analyzed 55 in-depth interviews via Google Meet and Zoom with employees at a single global organization with a reputation for prioritizing employee wellbeing and work-life balance, and with offices located in the U.S., Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. The interviews lasted between 52 and 134 minutes, with an average duration of 75 minutes. Thirty-four participants were men while 23 were women and their ages ranged from 24 to 63. Participants had been employed at the organization for an average of 3.6 years with the longest tenure over 40 years and shortest tenure under one year. The interview transcripts were then subject to a three-stage thematic analysis with the first stage consisting of memo writing to identify significant aspects of the transcripts and open coding to identify instances of topics like boundary management, work-life balance, communication technology use, connectivity expectations, and the global environment appearing in the transcripts. Phronetic iterative analysis was used in the second phase of coding by which the authors repeatedly reviewed and reflected on their data to find patterns and gain deeper understanding. Finally, in the third phase, the researchers grouped the secondary codes into third-level categories of collaborative sensemaking: raising awareness, collaborative sensemaking: cocreating connectivity rule, team leaders’ sensegiving: showing example, and supportive culture for managing work-life boundaries.  

The authors found that this particular organization highly valued employee wellbeing and work-life balance, and that leadership explicitly verbally communicated and reiterated this and ensured that it was reflected in organizational policies and guidelines. Organizational members at all levels also participated in related discussions to raise awareness, generate rules, and inform a shared perspective on connectivity expectations, such as limiting communication outside of working hours to only urgent issues or imposing temporal boundaries on such communication. However, there were still times when certain organizational members' actions did not align with this discourse and felt it necessary to be constantly connected and available due to the nature of global work. Organizational members also sometimes tried to divide connectivity expectations and responsibilities amongst themselves, using strategies such as trading off when regularly recurring virtual meetings were scheduled outside of participants’ working hours due to the time zones in which they were located. Team leaders sensegiving involved their modeling behaviors of disconnecting practices and also explicitly communicating how to and the importance of disconnecting from work, but their actions (e.g., sending emails after working hours) did not always align with their communication, sometimes creating confusion about what are true connectivity expectations. Underscoring the significance of the collaborative nature of sensemaking, participants mostly drew on co-created rules for connectivity (especially when leaders’ sensegiving was unsuccessful) and this sensegiving by leadership to guide their own connectivity practices and manage their work-life boundaries.  

Practically, this study demonstrates that social norms and the behaviors of organizational leadership greatly influence organizational members’ understanding and enactment of connectivity expectations. Organizational leaders can create a culture of open communication and leverage collective sensemaking by engaging in open discussion about connectivity expectations to support work-life boundary management and both organizational and employee wellbeing. 

Communication Currents Discussion Questions 

1. How do you manage your own work-life balance? Would you describe yourself as a high segmenter (keeping work and personal life separate) or a high integrator (merging work and life)? What are the advantages and challenges of your approach? 
2. Have you ever worked with or observed a leader whose actions didn't align with their communication about work-life balance or other policies? How did that affect you or your team? How would you respond if this happened in the future? How important do you think it is for leaders to model the behavior they expect from others, especially in a global team setting? What challenges might leaders face in doing this? 
3. In addition to time zones, cultural differences can affect communication in global teams. What strategies do you think could help overcome communication challenges in a diverse, global team? 

For additional suggestions about how to use this and other Communication Currents in the classroom, see: https://www.natcom.org/publications/communication-currents/integrating-communication-currents-classroom  

About the Authors 

Jonna Leppäkumpu is a University Teacher in the Department of Language and Communication Studies at the University of Jyväskylä. 

Anu Sivunen is a Professor in the Department of Language and Communication Studies at the University of Jyväskylä. 

This essay, by R. E. Purtell, translates the scholarly journal article, Jonna Leppäkumpu & Anu Sivunen (2024): Navigating connectivity expectations and work-life boundaries through sensemaking in global teams. Journal of Applied Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2024.2404050  

 2023 National Communication Association

The full copyright and privacy policy is available at natcom.org/privacy-policy-and-terms-use