A Framework for Constructing Effective Virtual Teams

The Journal of E-working Pages 83-97, Vol 1, December 2007

A Framework for Constructing Effective Virtual Teams Andrew Gaudes University of New Brunswick Canada Bonnie Hamilton-Bogart Results Planning Limited Canada Stephen Marsh National Research Council of Canada Canada Hilary Robinson Public Health Agency of Canada Canada Abstract Through a review of virtual team literature and meta-analytical studies, we compile indicators that contribute towards the effectiveness of virtual teams. Drawing from the relevant literature and study findings, the indicators have been brought into a unifying framework. The framework utilizes two dimensions; the first is based upon the inputsprocess-outputs model traditionally applied when studying teams and group performance. The second is based upon variables identified as particularly important in contributing to virtual team effectiveness (the team, team members, team leader, the organization, the project, and technology). We anticipate that understanding these indicators and where their effect lies in the framework will assist managers in constructing virtual teams that are optimally suited for their specific task. This paper offers a brief account of the framework and the basis for the indicators that lie within. Keywords: virtual teams, computer-mediated communication, management The Journal of E-working

83

http://www.eworkjournal.org

1. Introduction Continuous improvement of electronic communication for more than two decades has enabled individuals to collaborate over distance with greater effectiveness due to the increasing ability to send greater amounts of information, at faster rates of transmission. No longer is it compulsory for teams to be collocated in order for members to exchange ideas in a timely manner towards group tasks. Teams are reducing the frequency of physical meetings, sometimes not meeting face-to-face at all, collaborating via electronic methods, which has become more widely known as working virtually. For many, collaborating virtually, or in virtual teams, has become a normal part of conducting business, either as formal structures within existing organizations, or on an ad-hoc taskdependent basis, with varied success (Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005). The Skills Enhancement for Public Health is a program within the Public Health Agency of Canada that delivers continuing education to public health practitioners across Canada. As part of the program, the agency has created the Virtual Team Support Initiative in order to research and assemble best practices for operating virtual teams that may prove beneficial to the Skills Team and the Agency. The research involved assembling recent literature on virtual teams, looking for findings that contribute to building effective virtual teams. A brief overview of the findings are presented here in a framework that takes into account the relationship between a team’s inputs, processes, and outputs and the scope at which each of these stages is viewed (individual, team, leader, organization, project, technology). The paper first presents the basis for the framework followed by explaining key indicators that have been placed in the various cells within the framework.

2. Literature review Our definition of virtual teams is drawn from Webster and Staples (2006) assessment, which describes a virtual team as a group of individuals that are working together in different physical locations. Virtual team members work interdependently, sharing responsibility for their outcomes, and have a significant reliance upon technology to support their communication. Earlier research on virtual teams gravitated around comparing virtual teams to conventional teams (Archer 1990; Hollingshead et al, 1993; Warkentin et al, 1997). However, recent arguments have stressed that the line between calling a team conventional or traditional and one that is virtual is becoming increasingly blurred: Fewer teams are remaining collocated, without any reliance upon technology for support of communication; and virtual teams may periodically meet face-to-face while undertaking tasks. Researchers instead have turned to discussion on the extent that teams engage in virtual methods of collaboration, or the extent of virtualness that any team employs (Griffith et al, 2003). Further, the specific nature of virtual team leadership, projects, and technical support requires additional examination beyond the traditional team (Powell et al, 2004), which forms the basis for the framework offered in this paper. Research on virtual teams often views group performance using the Hackman and Morris (1975) inputs-processes-outputs (I-P-O) model, looking at a team as it moves through the three stages. Inputs are the initial contributions, such as team design and construction. The Journal of E-working

84

http://www.eworkjournal.org

The context in which a team operates may also contribute to a team’s inputs (Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005). Processes represent the ongoing interaction between group members. It refers to the interdependent actions carried out by members, which transforms inputs to outputs. This action can be undertaken via cognitive, verbal, or behavioural activities towards attaining a collective goal (Marks et al, 2001). A team’s outputs refer to the consequences of a group’s collaboration as they relate to task and non-task items. Outputs are associated with the effectiveness of a virtual team and encompass performance, satisfaction, work attitudes and the behavioural manifestation of members of a team (Webster and Staples, 2006). While other process models have been offered to study virtual teams (i.e., Hertel et al, 2005 lifecycle model), the I–P–O model has demonstrated a particular appeal with metaanalytical studies (i.e., Webster and Staples, 2006). This model was initially developed in the context of conventional teams and subsequently adopted by researchers to study virtual teams (i.e., Powell et al, 2004; Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005; Webster and Staples, 2006). As Martins et al (2004) argue, the I-P-O model provides a “sound basis for organizing and integrating the literature on VTs [virtual teams]” (p 809). While the inputs-processes-output model offers a basis for integrating virtual team literature, it is by no means exhaustive. For the most part, the I-P-O model remains rather micro in perspective, suggesting the weight of success occurs largely within the dominion of the team, its leader, and its members. A meta-analytical review of virtual team literature revealed that few studies have actually taken into account the organizational context when assessing virtual team effectiveness (Webster and Staples, 2006). Put differently, the systemic association of macro and micro organizational characteristics has not been fully explored in virtual team research. Yet, organizational research literature has shown in the past that micro-level phenomena within organizations are tightly coupled with macro-level characteristics (Weick, 2001). Nagel (1961) cautions researchers to pay careful attention to understanding phenomenon at the systemic level; that without, we expose ourselves to inconsistencies in findings. Given the above, we have built a framework that utilizes the I-P-O model as one of two dimensions, offering consideration for what contributes to the effectiveness of virtual teams at the inputs, processes, and outputs stages. As a second dimension however, we put forward the need to explore each of these phases from different perspectives. Not only is virtual team effectiveness examined through the micro lens of individual members and the team, the framework has expanded to incorporate the macro organizational context, thereby encompassing a perspective currently lacking in much of the research. The intent of such a table is to purposefully draw contributions into specific areas of the framework in order to later pinpoint, and enable consideration of, indicators antecedent to effective virtual teams. For this study, we conducted a search of literature via electronic databases, using terms most relevant to the field of research on virtual teams (i.e., virtual teams, virtual organizations, computer-mediated communication). Studies were also found by reviewing the lists of references in the articles initially retrieved through the database. The Journal of E-working

85

http://www.eworkjournal.org

Articles were selected based upon their currency and ability to survey earlier literature on virtual teams. Other literature was included if it provided further elaboration on the findings made in the initial set of articles. The findings in the studies have been incorporated into fields within the framework where they make the greatest contribution towards the composition of an effective virtual team.

3. A Framework Table 1 illustrates the two dimensions of the framework, showing the inputs, processes, and outputs stages, as well as the facets of individual, team, leader, organization, project, and technology. The table also displays the coverage of each field offered in the findings generated in the articles we reviewed. Insofar as coverage across the framework, more contributions relate to the full scope of input indicators than at the process or output stages of the I-P-O model. As anticipated, virtual team literature from the technology context is scant, particularly as it relates to processes and outputs. As well, we did not find virtual team literature on leadership for outputs and projects for processes in the articles reviewed. Table 1: Indicators of Effectiveness in Virtual Teams. INDIVIDUAL

INPUTS X

>

PROCESSES X

TEAM

X

X

LEADER

X

X

ORGANIZATION

X

X

PROJECT

X

TECHNOLOGY

X

>

OUTPUTS X X

X X

For the sake of clarity, the framework is presented in three separate tables, each offering indicators at one of the three stages (inputs, processes, outputs) in the model. The individual tables provide a brief explanation of key indicators in each facet. Inputs Inputs to a virtual team are the initial contributions, such as team design and construction. Individual: Much of the virtual team literature is directed towards establishing the characteristics of individuals best suited for working on a virtual team. Individual characteristics such as extroversion were found to be beneficial to team effectiveness, however a variance in extroversion within a team can negatively impact the team’s cohesiveness (Martin et al, 2004). Other individual characteristics, such as being actionoriented, self-motivated, supportive of others, (Staples et al, 2005), and a disposition to The Journal of E-working

86

http://www.eworkjournal.org

trust others (Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2006) contribute to effective virtual teams at the input stage. Research also found that differing professional status can result in varying levels of comfort within a team (Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006); the higher the professional status, particularly when movement in status is less likely (i.e., nurse to a doctor) the greater the participation and comfort in a team (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006). Research in the area of accepting technology in an individual’s work life (the technology readiness index – TRI, and the technology acceptance model – TAM) assists us in understanding that discomfort with technology in general, or doubt in the extent that information is secure in computer-mediated communication, has a negative impact upon virtual team effectiveness (Walczuch et al, 2007). On the other hand, individuals that typically like to be one of the first to apply new technology, or are optimistic with the prospect of technology benefiting an individual’s life contribute towards effective virtual teams (Walczuch et al, 2007). Further, the perceived ease of use of new technology, and the perception that adoption of a new technology will actually be useful contribute to virtual team effectiveness. Team: For inputs in a team, design is a factor towards effectiveness: Ortiz de Guinea et al (2005) found in their meta-analytical study of over 200 empirical papers on virtual teams a significant positive relationship between the degree of virtualness designed into a team and team outcomes (quality, productivity, and satisfaction). However, they found no significant relationship between degree of virtualness and trust (Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005). The results of this empirical study are meaningful since it counters much of the literature found on virtual teams. Establishing team norms (Warkentin and Beranek, 1999), and clear team structure also contribute toward team effectiveness (Powell et al, 2004). Based upon case study and reviews of literature, Staples et al (2005) found that diversity in virtual teams contributes to creativity and team effectiveness. Ortiz de Guinea et al, (2005) also surmise that the improved outcomes due to increased virtualness as reported above may be due to the diversity of resources and perspectives available within virtual teams. However the positive effects of diversity may be slow in coming when there is a face-to-face launch. At such inaugural events, members will hastily apply surface level diversity (demographic diversity) in classifying themselves as similar or different on deeper levels of diversity such as thought, attitudes, and behaviours, which can shape subsequent interactions (Tsui et al, 1992; Fiske, 2000). Although increased collaboration or frequent meetings on tasks over time can weaken the effect of differences attributed to surface level diversity by discovering shared deeper level values (Harrison et al, 2002), the time spent in overcoming perceived differences may be at the expense of timely project completion, particularly for temporary groups (Powell et al, 2004). Research has shown that teams attain higher trust and cohesion when they embark upon more social communication earlier on (Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999; Chidambaram, 1996). It would

The Journal of E-working

87

http://www.eworkjournal.org

Table 2: Indicators of Effectiveness in Virtual Teams – Inputs. INDICATORS

STUDIES

INDIVIDUAL Action-Oriented Composition of Team Culture (Background) Degree of Virtualnes of Members Discomfort with IT and need to control (TRI) Innovativeness with new technology (TRI) Insecurity with privacy of technology (TRI) Knowledge, Skill, Ability Member Characteristics Motivated Optimistic perspective of technology (TRI) Perceived Ease of Use of IT (TAM) Perceived Usefulness of IT (TAM) Personnel Selection Professional Status Supportive of Others Technical Expertise Trust Trust (Cognition-Based) Trust (Disposition to) Type of Team Members

Staples et al, 2005 Martins et al, 2004 Powell et al, 2004 Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005; Webster & Staples, 2006 Walczuch et al, 2007 Walczuch et al, 2007 Walczuch et al, 2007 Staples, 2001 Martins et al, 2004 Staples et al, 2005 Walczuch et al, 2007 Walczuch et al, 2007 Walczuch et al, 2007 Hertel et al, 2005 Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006 Staples et al, 2005 Powell et al, 2004 Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Staples, 2001 Staples, 2001 Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005 Webster & Staples, 2006

Degree of Virtualnes of Team Design of Team Diversity in Team Establishment of Norms Face-to-Face Launch Geographic Dispersion of Team Group Characteristics Mission Statement Presence of Faultlines in Teams Psychological Safety Stage of Team Development Team Autonomy Team Size Training

Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005; Webster & Staples, 2006 Powell et al, 2004 Staples et al, 2005; Polzer et al, 2006; Martins et al, 2004 Warkentin & Beranek, 1999 Staples et al, 2005 Polzer et al, 2006 Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005 Hertel et al, 2005 Polzer et al, 2006 Gibson & Gibbs, 2006 Webster & Staples, 2006 Webster & Staples, 2006 Martins et al, 2004 Powell et al, 2004

Establishing Position of Team Members Expectations Leadership Leader Inclusiveness Supervisory Behaviours Transactional versus Transformational

Warkentin & Beranek, 1999 Webster & Staples, 2006 Martins et al, 2004 Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006 Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005; Webster & Staples, 2006 Webster & Staples, 2006

Developed Policies & Standards Establishment of Team Leader Focus Identification of Appropriate Members Multiple Agency Organization Context

Staples, 2001 Warkentin & Beranek, 1999 Gaudes, 2003 Warkentin & Beranek, 1999 Gaudes, 2003 Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005; Hertel et al, 2005; Martins et al, 2004 Webster & Staples, 2006; Gaudes, 2003 Gaudes, 2003 Webster & Staples, 2006; Hertel et al, 2005 Gaudes, 2003 Gaudes, 2003 Staples et al, 2005 Gaudes, 2003 Gaudes, 2003 Gaudes, 2003 Gaudes, 2003

TEAM

LEADER

ORGANIZATION

Organization Culture Particularism Reward System Scope Stability Supply of Resources Tangibility Timeframe Duration Timeframe Precision Volition

PROJECT Defined Task Roles Interdependence Task Demands Task Design Task Duration

Warkentin & Beranek, 1999 Webster & Staples, 2006 Webster & Staples, 2006 Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005; Webster & Staples, 2006; Hertel et al, 2005; Martins et al, 2004 Webster & Staples, 2006

Communication through IT IT Resources and Training Technology Provided Effective use of ICTs Perceived Ease of Use of IT (TAM) Perceived Usefulness of IT (TAM)

Webster & Staples, 2006 Webster & Staples, 2006 Hertel et al, 2005; Martins et al, 2004 Thomas et al, 2007 Walczuch et al, 2007 Walczuch et al, 2007

TECHNOLOGY

The Journal of E-working

88

http://www.eworkjournal.org

therefore be more advantageous for virtual teams to overcome surface level diversity by launching virtually, and then over time coming together to meet face-to-face once shared work-related values are established. Geographic dispersion of a team should be carefully considered, with the intent of distributing individuals without the potential for any geographic subgroups that can promote “faultlines,” thereby breaking the team into smaller virtual teams that exhibit greater conflict and are less cohesive (Polzer et al, 2006). Virtual teams should also be designed with a consideration for psychological safety, where individuals will more likely contribute unsolicited information. This can be achieved through encouraging support, trust, openness, risk taking, and respect within the team (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006). Values such as the above can be instilled in training (Powell et al, 2004) and by designing teams of a size that maintains goodwill and intimacy (Martins et al, 2004). Leader: The leader has opportunity to establish an effective path for a virtual team at the input stage, establishing the position of members in the team (Warkentin and Beranek, 1999), and outlining the expectations that she or he has for the team and individual members (Webster and Staples, 2006). An effective virtual team leader will also provide role clarity to members, and effective communication skills, emulating attributes that are expected of the entire team (Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005; Webster and Staples, 2006). The leader can also generate a sense of member inclusiveness by inviting comment and expressing an appreciation for member contributions (Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006). Such an effort made by a team leader will help members feel valued and in an environment where they feel able to contribute and voice opinion (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006). A leader of a virtual team should also demonstrate a transformational approach to leadership — one that inspires, conveying a vision and passion for the projects that is contagious, instilling energy and enthusiasm into team members; rather than a transactional approach — motivation through reward and punishment, hierarchy, and adherence to strict guidelines (Webster and Staples, 2006). Organization: The organization sets the stage upon which the virtual team actors must work. Organizations are able to amplify the effectiveness of virtual teams by instilling a workplace attitude that all can subscribe to. From the perspective of resources, organizations should provide support via sufficient time, finances, facilities, IT, and training to carry out tasks (Staples et al, 2005). The organization that employs a reward system that is well communicated and team-based will enhance cohesiveness, motivation, and ultimately virtual team effectiveness (Webster and Staples, 2006; Staples et al, 2005). Organizations that support a relational workplace environment (work arrangements that emphasize social exchange and interdependence) over a transactional workplace environment (work arrangements that are explicit and agreed) are more prone to experiencing effective virtual teams (Gaudes, 2003). A relational environment can be fostered through workplace dimensions such as low stability (work arrangements can change without renegotiation); wide scope (a high degree of crossover between an The Journal of E-working

89

http://www.eworkjournal.org

individual’s work and personal life); or low levels of tangibility (the extent that a job is explicitly specified as in a contract relationship). A focus on socio-emotional concerns in a work relationship, over economic concerns also leads to effective virtual teams. Items such as growth, status, and loyalty, or jobs where empathy and caring are intrinsic to the job, such as nursing are examples where a focus is placed upon socio-emotional concerns (Gaudes, 2003). Furthermore, organizations that employ with timeframes that are relatively long in duration, and low in precision of the arrangement’s being finite have a higher relational content and better able to support an effective virtual team (Gaudes, 2003). If an organization deems team members as unique and non-substitutable (particularism); involves multiple employers and obligations (multiple agency); employs virtual team members on their own volition; then the relational quality is high (Gaudes, 2003). Project: In assigning projects for virtual teams, task demands with a longer duration and a moderate level of interdependence contribute to a greater level of team effectiveness. Short-term projects should rely on a higher level of independence. Over the longer term however, projects that build upon interdependence will contribute toward developing work norms and help build a collective identity (Webster and Staples, 2006). Task roles that are specifically defined contribute to each member’s understanding of their place within a project and help in successfully completing within expectations (Warkentin and Beranek, 1999) Ambiguity in team tasks, on the other hand, has led to an increase in time to complete projects. It should also be noted however that task ambiguity could also contribute to an improved, more focused team goal (Martins et al, 2004) as a team works together toward minimizing the ambiguity. Technology: Mentioned earlier under individual inputs, the technology adoption model seeks to explain the attitude that users have in applying new technology. We mention it here again to emphasize the importance of assigning technology to individuals that they first believe will be easy to use, and second that they believe will actually contribute to successfully completing a task (Walczuch et al, 2007). As Thomas et al (2007) discovered convincing virtual teams to use new forms of technology is an ongoing challenge. Furthermore, technology that increases the ease of communication between team members will contribute to a tighter coupling of the team and ultimately team effectiveness (Webster and Staples, 2006). Processes Processes represent the ongoing interaction between group members. It refers to the interdependent actions carried out by members, which transforms inputs to outputs.

The Journal of E-working

90

http://www.eworkjournal.org

Table 3: Indicators of Effectiveness in Virtual Teams – Processes. INDICATORS

STUDIES

INDIVIDUAL Communication Dependent (Seeking Support) Information seeking Participation Trust

Staples et al, 2005; Staples, 2001; Martins et al, 2004; Gibson & Gibbs, 2006 Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005 Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005 Martinss et al, 2004; Gibson & Gibbs, 2006 Staples, 2001; Powell et al, 2004; Martins et al, 2004

TEAM Cohesion

Communication (Frequent/Spontaneous) Communication (Full-Team Support) Cooperative Work Environment Coordination of Team Defined Team Objectives/Rules Goals Set/Clarified Group Identity Informality Knowledge Sharing Openness Psychological Safety Relationship Building

Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005; Powell et al, 2004; Webster & Staples, 2006; Martins et al, 2004 Staples et al, 2005; Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005; Powell et al, 2004; Webster & Staples, 2006; Hertel et al, 2005 Gibson & Gibbs, 2006 Polzer et al, 2006 Staples et al, 2005 Webster & Staples, 2006 Hertel et al, 2005; Warkentin & Beranek, 1999 Hertel et al, 2005; Martins et al, 2004 Martins et al, 2004 Martins et al, 2004 Webster & Staples, 2006; Gibson & Gibbs, 2006 Gibson & Gibbs, 2006 Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006 Powell et al, 2004; Hertel et al, 2005

Assessment of Needs Avoidance of Hands-on Mgmt Empowerment of Members Feedback Leadership Monitoring and Back-up Motivation/Emotion Right Leader-Style Timing Setting Goals and Direction Team Conflict Team Coordination Timing of Planning Events Trust (Building)

Hertel et al, 2005 Staples et al, 2005 Staples et al, 2005; Powell et al, 2004 Staples et al, 2005; Gibson & Gibbs, 2006 Hertel et al, 2005; Martins et al, 2004 Martins et al, 2004 Staples et al, 2005; Hertel et al, 2005 Staples et al, 2005 Staples et al, 2005 Martins et al, 2004 Powell et al, 2004 Martins et al, 2004 Staples et al, 2005; Staples, 2001

Incorporation of Channels for Social Cues Suppoprtive Collaboration Tools Workspaces that Support Virtual Working Individual & Team Training Kick-off Workshop Knowledge Management Social Integration

Warkentin & Beranek, 1999 Hyrkkänen et al, 2007 Vartiainen, 2007 Hertel et al, 2005 Hertel et al, 2005 Hertel et al, 2005 Martins et al, 2004

Communication

LEADER

ORGANIZATION

Individual: A significant contributor to effective virtual team processes, both at the individual and at the team level is communication. This was seen repeatedly through all articles that we reviewed. Trust building activities such as open communication, honesty in behaviour and delivering upon commitments contributes to team effectiveness via increased performance, job satisfaction, and decreased job stress (Staples 2001). Affectbased trust (the emotional bonds between two parties that display genuine concern for each other) can assist in building team member loyalty, however greater effectiveness is found when managers focus upon cognition-based trust (demonstrated responsibility and competence) in virtual teams (Staples, 2001). Team members that show a level of dependence upon other members (i.e., requiring the support of others) will contribute to the degree of interdependence within a team. In turn, interdependence contributes to team trust, loyalty and cohesiveness. As well, individuals that seek information contribute to the coupling of the team and virtual team effectiveness (Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005).

The Journal of E-working

91

http://www.eworkjournal.org

Team: Team cohesion has been found to have significant relationships with job quality, satisfaction, and trust (Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005). Virtual teams with similar work attitudes have a higher degree of cohesion. Good communication practices, such as frequent and spontaneous (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006) as well as support for full team communication (Polzer et al, 2006) have also been found to contribute to overall virtual team effectiveness. Virtual teams that have a history of high productivity communicate more often on an informal, more social basis. Furthermore, relationship building by enhanced social communication, or facilitating regular chat sessions with all team members leads toward greater satisfaction of individual team members and better team performance (Powell et al, 2004). A cooperative team environment, one that reinforces and supports information sharing, responsiveness and team cooperation contributes toward team effectiveness (Staples et al, 2005). The perception of a team possessing a common group identity can reduce the amount of team conflict and may be critical to effective functioning of teams as a result of its impact on cooperation, commitment to decisions, and level of trust (Martins et al, 2004). If team members work independent of each other they may still have a sense of team identity if individuals are portrayed as a significant part of the team, rather than as individuals working piecemeal (Martins et al, 2004). Leader: Virtual team leaders should take time to assess the needs of the team and its individual members, employing guidelines and rules of “netiquette” that the team can follow for the duration of the project. Such actions by the leader can build upon team satisfaction and cohesiveness (Hertel et al, 2005). While resources should be supplied to the team to carry out their task, the power to take action as well as make decisions should be with the team, independent of management influence (Staples et al, 2005). Overall goals as well as establishing direction may fit within the responsibility of the team leader, but individual members should be able to decide upon their own specific approach to accomplishing tasks. This makes sense, since members in a virtual team are dispersed over great areas, making any form of micromanagement exhausting, if not impossible (Staples et al, 2005). While regular, timely feedback by team leaders is critical to maintaining performance and increasing effectiveness of team members (Staples et al, 2005) it is also important to recognize that the method of conveying feedback will often be electronic, which does not allow for nonverbal, subtle cues to convey a positive or negative assessment. As such, care must be taken by leaders to effectively convey feedback, balanced in its clarity and tact (Gibson and Gibbs, 2005). As well, the distributed nature of virtual teams reduces the ability for members to be monitored by team leaders, and to receive back-up as necessary. Enhanced feedback processes, coaching, as well as encouraging assistance by other members and team leaders can assist in this area, but it remains a challenge that may only be offset by preparing individual members to self-manage their work (Martins et al, 2005). Socio-emotional feedback, sharing, and support can also help individual team members feel less disconnected, building upon team cohesion and trust, as well as member The Journal of E-working

92

http://www.eworkjournal.org

motivation, satisfaction and performance (Hertel et al, 2005). Team leaders need to also consider the timing of their style of leadership as the project progresses: At the early stages, leaders should be focusing on generating enthusiasm for the project, ensuring that people are motivated for the task at hand. As the project matures, leaders should be working on ensuring people remain on task and are collaborating with each other as necessary to keep the project moving forward (Staples et al, 2005). As the project approaches completion, the focus should then be directed toward emotional disengagement, including a wrap-up event that recognizes closure and (hopefully) successful completion of the project so members may turn their attention to the formation of new teams and new projects (Hertel et al, 2005). Leaders must also engage in developing a relationship with virtual team members based upon trust, which is fostered through frequent, open and spontaneous communication. The trust that is built will help in reducing team member job stress and tension as well as increase team performance and effectiveness (Staples, 2001). Organization: Organizations can facilitate effective virtual teams by ensuring that the teams and its members have sufficient channels to support social cues among members and leaders. Supplying teams with resources that enable more verbal and nonverbal cues transferred back and forth at a faster, as well as more frequent rate, will reduce any potential feelings of disconnectedness and isolation within the teams (Warkentin and Beranek, 1999). Hyrkkänen et al (2007) underscore the impact that breakdowns in communication tools have on successful communication in virtual environments. The workspaces that virtual team members employ for individual work – where concentration demands are high, and virtual collaboration spaces – supporting video and teleconferencing, are requirements called upon in research to support contemporary work practices such as virtual teams (Vartiainen, 2007). Organizations can also facilitate training programs specific for virtual teams that may include conventional team development exercises (such as clarifying team goals and individual roles), but also include best practices in electronic communication and self-management (Hertel et al, 2005). It is within the role of organizations to support a kick-off workshop that not only prepares team members for work processes and challenges of virtual collaboration, but also ushers in a trust-building process, a shared context among team members, as well as team identification (Hertel et al, 2005). A challenge for organizations is the management and transfer of knowledge among team individuals, as well as from the team to the organization. The temporal nature of virtual teams, and the reduced amount of face-to-face communication leads to complexity in transfer of extant, as well as new knowledge generated due to individual collaboration. However, organizations have the advantage of establishing system-wide modifications to capture knowledge as it is transferred via supportive communication channels (Hertel et al, 2005), which aids in documenting the progress of virtual teams, and contributes to subsequent virtual teams, and their effectiveness.

The Journal of E-working

93

http://www.eworkjournal.org

Outputs Virtual team outputs refer to the consequences of a group’s collaboration as they relate to task and non-task items. Table 4: Indicators of Effectiveness in Virtual Teams – Outputs. INDICATORS

STUDIES

INDIVIDUAL Commitment Job Satisfaction Job Stress Performance Outcomes Trust

Gibson & Gibbs, 2006 Staples, 2001; Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005; Powell et al, 2004; Martins et al, 2004; Gibson & Gibbs, 2006 Staples, 2001 Webster & Staples, 2006 Staples, 2001; Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005; Gibson & Gibbs, 2006

TEAM Decision Quality in Team Joint Team Performance Performance Productivity Team Creativity

Martins et al, 2004 Polzer et al, 2006 Staples, 2001; Powell et al, 2004; Webster & Staples, 2006; Polzer et al, 2006 Staples, 2001; Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005 Martins et al, 2004

Career Development Opportunities Recognition Rewards (Members)

Staples et al, 2005 Hertel et al, 2005 Staples et al, 2005

Quality Quality Improvement

Hertel et al, 2005 Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006

ORGANIZATION

PROJECT

Individual: Individual commitment as well as satisfaction has been predicted in virtual team members with a supportive communication environment, which in turn have been found to increase the success of virtual teams (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006). Individual job satisfaction also has a strong relationship with the cohesiveness of a virtual team (Ortiz de Guinea, 2005). Trust has been found to be an indicator of increased job satisfaction and reduced job stress (Staples, 2001), as well as increased virtual team effectiveness (Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005). Individual trust is an indicator that a psychologically safe work environment may be present, where individuals feel comfortable with the support, openness, mutual respect and ability to take risks (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006). Affect-based trust is an indicator of job satisfaction and overall productivity, however cognition-based trust is a predictor of perceptions of overall productivity, increased job satisfaction, and reduced job stress (Staples, 2001). Individuals that receive training are more satisfied than those that did not receive training (Powell et al, 2004). A satisfied virtual team member is likely to remain within the team as well as participate in future virtual teams (Powell et al, 2004). As well, women tend to be more satisfied with a virtual team experience than men. Women in virtual teams also tend to be more satisfied with the team experience than women in conventional teams (Powell et al, 2004). Further, all-female virtual teams tend to report greater levels of satisfaction than all-male virtual teams (Martins et al, 2004). Satisfaction can also be increased among members by employing a team consensus in decision-making tasks (Martins et al, 2004). Also, satisfaction in virtual team membership increases as team membership progresses (Martins et al, 2004).

The Journal of E-working

94

http://www.eworkjournal.org

Team: Group cohesiveness has been found to be an indicator of individual satisfaction, and necessary for the effective exchange of information, regardless of the communication media employed by the team (Martins et al, 2004). A fine balance also exists however in computer-mediated communication within virtual teams, where too much or too little can result in diminished creativity (Martins et al, 2004). In a virtual team environment, collaborative and competitive conflict behaviour is positively linked with performance (Powell et al, 2004), as is the degree of virtualness (Ortiz de Guinea et al, 2005) and team connectivity (Staples, 2001). Faultlines that can negatively affect a virtual team can be limited by emphasizing joint team performance and member identification within an entire team rather than subgroups within the team (Polzer et al, 2006). Organization: Organizations need to recognize members in a virtual team, since they are more likely to be passed over on promotions. Special opportunities in career development should be present for virtual team members in order to dispel any fear of being forgotten for advances within the organization (Staples et al, 2005). As well, virtual team members should be recognized for their efforts by the organization when the virtual team disbands so that members are motivated to reintegrate into future virtual teams (Hertel et al, 2005). Rewards that are provided to individual members, as well as to recognize the team, will maintain individual motivation and group cohesiveness during projects (Staples et al, 2005). Project: Project quality is enhanced when task demands are not of a highly complex nature, and do not demand high interdependence among team members (Hertel et al, 2005). Quality improvement projects such as dry-runs, pilot projects, and problem solving exercises that by nature are interpersonally risky, are attractive in a virtual environment that has built trust and open communication among team members and its leader (Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006; Gibson and Gibbs, 2006).

4. Conclusion This paper provides a brief account of a framework we developed, based upon recent articles, which survey much of the extant literature on virtual teams. The intent of our study was to incorporate indicators of effective virtual teams into the framework where they make the greatest contribution. Indicators of effectiveness have been placed at the input, process, and output stages. We have also placed indicators based upon their relevance to the virtual team member; the virtual team; the virtual team leader; the organization; the project; as well as the technology that is applied to enable the virtual team. The framework illustrates the richness of literature that exists in particular fields, while also presenting the areas where indicators are scant or nonexistent. For researchers, this provides an opportunity to undertake study that teases out findings, which lead to indicators of effectiveness in areas presently unrepresented, such as projects at the process stage, or the application of technology at the output stage. For managers, the framework enables consideration of known indicators of effectiveness for the design and management of virtual teams.

The Journal of E-working

95

http://www.eworkjournal.org

Bibliography Archer, N. P. (1990). “A comparison of computer conferences with face-to-face meetings for small group business decisions.” Behaviour & Information Technology, 9:4, 307-317. Chidambaram, L. (1996). “Relational development in computer-supported groups.” MIS Quarterly, 20:2, 143-163. Fiske, S. T. (2000). Interdependence and the reduction of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and descrimination (115-135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gaudes, A. (2003). “Virtual organizations: Exchange and context.” In P. Jackson and B. Rapp (Eds.), Organizations and Work Beyond 2000, 103-115. New York, NY: Springer Verlag. Gibson, C. B., and Gibbs, J. L. (2006). “Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 51, 451-495. Griffith, T. L., Sawyer, J. E., and Neale, M. A. (2003). “Virtualness and knowledge in teams: Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology.” MIS Quarterly, 27: 265-287. Hackman, J. R., and Morris, C. G. (1975). “Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 8, 45-99, San Diego: Academic Press. Hertel, G., Geister, S., and Konradt, U. (2005). “Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research.” Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69-95. Hollingshead, A. McGrath, J., and O’Connor, K. (1993). “Group task performance and communication technology: A longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to face groups.” Small Group Research, 24:3, 307-333. Hyrkkänen, U., Putkonen, A., and Vartiainen, M. (2007) “Complexity and workload factors in virtual work environments of mobile work.” In M. J. Dainoff (Ed.) Ergonomics and Health Aspects, Vol. 4566, 85-94. Jarvenpaa, S. and Leidner, D. (1999). “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams, Organization Science, 10:6, 791-815. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., and Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes.” Academy of Management Review, 26, 276-356. Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., and Maynard, M. T. (2004). “Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here?” Journal of Management, 30:6, 805-835. Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation.” New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World. Nembhard, I. M., and Edmondson, A. (2006). “Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams.” Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 27, 941-966. Ortiz de Guinea, A., Webster, J., and Staples, S. (2005). “A meta-analysis of the virtual teams literature.” Presented October 12, 2005 at the Symposium on High Performance Professional Teams, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON Canada.

The Journal of E-working

96

http://www.eworkjournal.org

Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., and Kim, J. W. (2006). “Extending the faultline model to geographically dispersed teams: How collocated subgroups can impair group functioning.” Academy of Management Journal, 49:4, 679-692. Powell, A., Piccoli, G., and Ives, B. (2004). “Virtual teams: A review of current literature and directions for future research.” Advances in Information Systems, 35:1, 6-24. Staples, S. (2001). “A study of remote workers and their differences from non-remote workers.” Journal of End User Computing, 13:2, 3-14. Staples, S., Wong, I. K., and Cameron, A. F. (2005). Best practices for effective virtual teams. Kingston, ON: Idea Group Publishing. Thomas, D. M., Bostrom, R. P., and Gouge, M. (2007). “Making knowledge work in virtual teams.” Communications of the ACM, 50:11, 85-90. Tsui, A. S., Eagan, T. D., and O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579. Vartiainen, M (2007). “Analysis of multilocational and mobile knowledge workers’ work spaces.” In Don Harris (Ed.) Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, Vol. 4562, 194-203. Walczuch, R., Lemmink, J., and Streukens, S. (2007). “The effect of service employees’ technology readiness on technology acceptance.” Information & Management, 44, 206-215. Warkentin, M. E., and Beranek, P. M. (1999). “Training to improve virtual team communication.” Info Systems, 9, 271-289. Warkentin, M. E., Sayeed, L., and Hightower, R. (1997). “Virtual teams versus face-toface teams: An exploratory study of a web-based conference system,” Decision Sciences, 28:4, 975-996. Webster, J., and Staples, S. (2006) “Comparing virtual teams to traditional teams: An identification of new research opportunities.” Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 25, 183-218. Weick, K. (2001). Making Sense of the Organization. Oxford, England: Blackwell Business.

License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, unless explicitly stated otherwise within the posted content. The Journal of E-working applies the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) to all works we publish. Under the CCAL, authors retain ownership of the copyright for their articles, but allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy their works so long the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from authors or the publishers.

The Journal of E-working

97

http://www.eworkjournal.org