Data Collection

Marshall & Rossman (2011) emphasise that there are four main methods of data gathering in qualitative research: participation, observation, interviews and analysing documents and

‘material culture’. Two of these methods are not available for the researcher who has chosen

to focus upon retrospective cases. Consequently, my research primarily relied upon interviews, supplemented by analysis of documents and other materials.

Interview Research

Interviews provided the most important source of data for the study. At one level interviews are a way of collecting a description of events and action (‘X did this’, ‘we undertook a study of Y’). As such, they represent a form of observation of the events that happened. Yet,

Power and Coordination in the Multinational Company Page | 94 interviews also provide the opportunity to investigate at a much deeper level. Firstly, interviews allow respondents to talk about their own feelings associated with the events (Langley, 2009) and can provide a perspective of that which is unseen: “the only thing I get stressed about is…”, “what would irritate me was…”. As such “through interviewing we can learn about places we have not been and could not go and about settings in which we have not lived” (Weiss, 1994, p. 1). Secondly, it is almost unavoidable that respondents seek to use the opportunity to explain and evaluate (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995) – with comments like “generally, we do a pretty good job” or “we made it far too complicated”. By giving respondents space within the interview they can reflect upon their experiences to provide their unique perspective and understanding. It is this richness that led Arvind Parkhe (2004) to say, “there is no data source as rewarding as interviews, in order to tap into the brain of the person(s) within each organisation under study who are most directly responsible for the phenomenon being researched.”

However, interview data is not without challenge. Firstly, Kvale (2008, p. 143) has questioned whether knowledge produced in is interviews useful arguing that “interview knowledge is not collected, but produced between interviewer and interviewee, and the meanings constructed in the interaction are again restructured throughout the later stages of an interview inquiry”. As such, interviewing can be characterised as relying upon human judgement and generating subjective rather than objective knowledge. But this critique reflects a largely positivist philosophy that requires that research methods should seek objectivity, reliability and generalisability (Brinkmann, 2013). In rejecting the search for a single, absolute ‘truth’, such requirements can also be rejected. Rather the researcher – including in his/her role as interviewer – accepts that there is a co-creation of meaning with respondents, probing them to reflect and consider upon their experiences and helping them interpret these.

Secondly, there are practical criticisms around the reliability of interview data. Either due to issues with respondent’s memory of events or because people are likely to answer questions based on their own interests (Brinkmann, 2013). These concerns may be unavoidable so, as researcher, I feel that the key is to be aware of the possibility, and to take account of it in analysis. Yet, while responses may change with time, it is not obvious why one instance of these (immediate response) should be privileged over others (after further thought and reflection).

In terms of attitudes, feelings and understanding there can be no alternative but to rely on the

respondent’s interpretation. However, in looking to understands events and actions there can

Power and Coordination in the Multinational Company Page | 95 really triangulation, as much as to explore what Buchanan (2012, p. 364) calls “the polyphonic, polysemic nature of organizations; many voices, many meanings”. Such multiple perspectives may also help to identify cases where a respondent looks to impress or exaggerate their role. However, my own experience, was that participants were largely humble about their own contributions and limitations while emphasising the achievements of others in the teams where they worked.

Thirdly, there are criticisms around the way that interviews are used – for example that quotes are used out of context; interpretations may be disconnected from the specifics of the text; or that the context of the interview may not be apparent (including what Potter & Hepburn, 2005, call ‘the deletion of the interviewer’). Yet, these are essentially issues around the analysis approach and the write-up of the research. In part this relies upon my personal integrity and ethics as a researcher. However, particularly with the space afforded by the PhD, the richness of data provided should help to dispel many concerns. At times, I have deliberately used longer quotes and vignettes to provide context and ensure that the data ‘speaks for itself’.

Approach to Interviews

Throughout the research, to access rich data interviews were semi-structured. An interview guide was developed that provided open-ended questions for the respondent. This started with questions about the respondent’s history and their current role/position and responsibilities, and questions around the organisational units or teams they felt they belonged to and had relationships with. The second phase of the interview focused upon specific projects or initiatives, asking the respondents to describe how these developed, to identify critical moments or turning points, to consider how they and others were able to influence outcomes, and to talk about resistance and challenge to the initiative.

Early interviews were run as a ‘pilot’. The aim of these was both to cement access into GlobeCo and to identify potential cases for the main stage of the analysis. However, this also provided very useful data that helped to identify key concepts and issues (for example the issue of ‘alignment’ arose as a concept at a very early stage). During this ‘pilot’ stage, respondents were asked to think in advance of the interview of initiatives that they wished to talk about.

Recruitment for this initial stage was combined elements of convenience sampling and ‘purposeful’ sampling (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), in that all the respondents were previously

Power and Coordination in the Multinational Company Page | 96 known to me, but they also represented a variety of roles with different functional, hierarchical and national perspectives.

These initial interviews confirmed that the interview protocol was producing rich data that was addressing issues of relevance to the research questions. It also became clear that two related areas of organisational change highlighted by respondents were potentially particularly revealing Both the formation of Global Business Services and the outsourcing of Facility Management in Europe were new initiatives within GlobeCo (requiring ideas to be generated and socialised); they resulted in the creation of new units that took over responsibilities from many existing parts of the organisation; and they involved multi- functional teams that themselves reported into different directions. In short, these provided fascinating contexts within which to investigate the evolution of power relations.

Subsequently, the remaining interviews broadly followed the same interview protocol, but

with the ‘initiative’ questions focused upon the two major cases. Respondents were asked to

reflect upon the case and their participation, explain their perception of issues such as where the change originated from, how was it agreed (or not), and how the change initiative was modified or resisted. This aimed is to build the overall ‘story’ of the cases, as well as identifying specific ‘critical incidents’ (Flanagan, 1954; Easterby-Smith et al, 2012) while also

giving insight into the respondents’ perceptions on power. Flexibility was retained throughout

the process, with the interview questions evolving as respondents lead into new areas of investigation.

Respondents for this second stage were selected based upon their apparent involvement in or experience with these projects, with a specific aim of hearing perspectives from multiple levels of seniority (Macdonald & Hellgren, 2004) and different organisational perspectives within GlobeCo. Respondents were asked for suggestions of who would be able to provide useful perspectives on the initiatives. In a limited number of cases respondents were interviewed a second time, with greater focus on specific issues, to fill gaps identified in previous interviews.

All interviews were recorded with the permission of the respondents, allowing concentration on the interview, rather than upon note taking (Birks & Mills, 2011). Interviews were transcribed verbatim as quickly after the interview as possible. Notes of my immediate impressions and thoughts after interviews were recorded in my research diary.

Power and Coordination in the Multinational Company Page | 97 Interview Data Collection

In total, 33 interviews were held with 29 different respondents (23 male, six female), with four respondents interviewed twice. All respondents were current or former employees of GlobeCo – except for one interview with a key consultant who worked closely with GlobeCo, and one interview with a lead member of the FM outsourcing partner. Respondents had an

average of 18 years’ experience in, or with, GlobeCo and together had experience of working

in another 30 multinational companies. They were from 10 nationalities, and between them had worked in GlobeCo in 25 countries. All respondents were either native English speakers or were fluent in English as their primary working language. The respondents were broadly split across management seniority levels ranging from extremely junior manager (at the time of the case) up to ‘C-suite’ (i.e. Chief X Officer). Interviews had a mean length of 70 minutes (range 41-150 minutes).

Initial interviews were held face-to-face, either at GlobeCo offices or neutral locations (both in the UK and in Continental Europe). However, increasingly it became clear that a requirement to meet in person would constrain who could be interviewed. After experimentation with the technology, most of the later interviews were conducted by video- conferencing (Skype or Facetime). This enabled respondents to be easily interviewed from 7 countries outside the UK (as far afield as Russia and the US), and from 10 different locations within the UK. This was not a deliberate decision made in advance but was a pragmatic response to scheduling and geography.

The Use of Video Conference Technology for Interviews

As a relatively new technology, the opportunity to use video via Skype or other voice-over- internet-protocol (VoiP) services for interviewing has only emerged in the last few years as an alternative, or supplement, to face-to-face interviewing as the ‘gold standard’ (McCoyde & Kerson, 2006). A small literature has on VoiP interviewing has subsequently developed. These highlight advantages in terms of logistics, cost and flexibility (Deaking & Wakefield, 2014, Cater 2011). However, concerns are raised around problems with technology, such as poor quality and loss of connection (Sedgwick & Spiers, 2009), as well as worry that there could be a loss of richness in the interview due to the nature of the interaction and loss of cultural routines (Rowley, 2012; Seitz, 2016) and a lack of visual cues (Hay-Gibson, 2009).

Overall, I found that the use of Skype aided recruitment. It meant that interviews could be

scheduled at the respondent’s convenience, and there was no pressure (or constraint) from

Power and Coordination in the Multinational Company Page | 98 this also happened with face-to-face interviews, and the cost and inconvenience of such a postponement of a Skype interview is much lower to the interviewer.

I experienced no technical issues. All respondents were familiar with the technology. While it was never necessary, I also felt that the Skype technology makes it easier for a respondent to stop an interview, if uncomfortable, which can be done with the press of a button.

Furthermore, despite the concerns raised in the literature I found no difference in the ability to build relationships in Skype interviews versus those held physically face-to-face. This may have been helped that respondents were used to relying upon using video-conferencing as part of their international jobs. Furthermore, it also helped that I knew some (but not all) of the respondents personally prior to speaking on Skype. However, my overall impression matches that of Segwick & Spiers (2009, p. 6) who saw videoconferencing as offering “a rich medium where multiple nonverbal and verbal cues, the use of natural language, and immediate feedback allowed the participants to express personal feelings and emotions”. Above all else, Skype allowed me to access a wider variety of respondents than would otherwise have been possible, and in doing so enriched the study.

Documents and Other Artefacts

Interview data was supplemented by documents and similar material. Around 60 publicly- available documents, presentations and videos were particularly useful. These included:

 A videoed interview with a former Chief HR Officer of GlobeCo, that addressed key issues covered in the study. This was transcribed verbatim and treated for analysis purposes as a primary source, along with my interviews.

 Presentations by GlobeCo executives to conferences and investors focusing on the key projects. This included PowerPoint presentations with transcribed text.

 An article in a leading management journal, written by the former head of GlobeCo Business Services, along with academic journal articles focusing upon GlobeCo.11

 Material from the trade press, plus press releases by GlobeCo and major suppliers.

 GlobeCo annual reports, speeches to the GlobeCo AGM and similar data.

Additionally, through respondents, I was able to access around 40 GlobeCo internal documents that were relevant to the creation of GBS and the Facilities Management project

Power and Coordination in the Multinational Company Page | 99 in Europe. This included briefing presentations, outlines of key proposal documentation, and GlobeCo internal announcements to staff.

Although most of this material was of a more general background nature, the internal and external presentations played a key role in confirming timelines and the order of events, while the internal material helped to confirm what issues were being highlighted at different points. However, I recognise that due to access constraints this is only a partial view of the full documentary evidence that sits within GlobeCo. Consequently, I avoided drawing conclusions based upon what was NOT included within these documents.

Furthermore, I remain conscious of the limitations of documentary and similar evidence. All the documents used as data within this study were written for a purpose. This may include to give a positive impression of either GlobeCo (their external presentations) or the author (e.g. the management journal article). The documents may have been written with a specific agenda, for example to justify initiatives to staff, or may deliberately downplay certain issues to avoid conflict or challenge. Furthermore, all documents are ‘social facts’ (Atkinson & Coffey 2004) that are produced and used in socially organised ways that fit with the conventions of the particular institutional context. This is particularly true of documents such as formal proposals, which are required to address certain issues while other issues are ignored. Consequently, documentary data can no more be regarded as ‘the truth’ than any other data. It is subject to biases, both intentional and unintentional, and needs to be considered in the context of who is preparing it, for whom, and for what purpose.