"Virtual Teams" in

Virtual Teams JENNIFER L. GIBBS University of California, Santa Barbara, USA

HEEWON KIM Arizona State University, USA

MAGGIE BOYRAZ California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, USA

Virtual teams are geographically dispersed and rely heavily on communication technologies to collaborate and conduct work. They are often culturally diverse and dynamic in structure as well (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). They have become increasingly common in organizations due to workplace trends toward globalization, distributed work, reliance on computer-mediated communication (CMC), and flexible work arrangements (Gibbs et al., 2008). A recent survey by the Society for Human Resource Management (MintonEversole, 2012) found that nearly half of companies surveyed used virtual teams, and that they were used by two thirds of multinational organizations. Scholarly research on virtual teams arose in the 1990s out of the largely experimental CMC groups tradition that examines the role of collaborative technology in group interaction (Hollingshead & McGrath, 1995). Virtual teams research emphasizes interaction among members who are geographically distributed and communicate largely through CMC; it encompasses both laboratory and field studies. The research tends to focus on both naturalistic organizational teams (such as global software teams) as well as student project teams. Teams have a certain degree of interdependence, often collaborating on a common task, and tend to be relatively small in size (ranging from 3 to 10 or 12 members). Virtual teams may be entirely within an organization or may span multiple organizations. Although virtuality has been defined in a variety of ways, key dimensions of virtuality include geographical dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and cultural diversity (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006) – with the first two dimensions being most frequently studied. Although much of the virtual teams research has been conducted by scholars in the management, information systems, and computer science disciplines, it is an interdisciplinary topic that is of particular interest to scholars of organizational communication. Given that virtual teams often lack physical instantiation, it is through communication practices that such teams take form and are visible. As current reviews of research on virtual teams suggest (e.g., Gilson et al., 2015), the inputs-processes-outcomes model has become the dominant framework used to investigate virtual teams in the management discipline. This approach examines input variables that act as antecedents to virtual teams processes and outcomes, including group size and composition, The International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication. Craig R. Scott and Laurie Lewis (Editors-in-Chief), James R. Barker, Joann Keyton, Timothy Kuhn, and Paaige K. Turner (Associate Editors). © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781118955567.wbieoc215

2

V I R T U A L TE A M S

members’ knowledge, skills and abilities, task, and technology. Communication is often included as one of the team processes, along with planning and interpersonal processes such as conflict, trust, or cohesion. Team outcomes include both affective states (e.g., satisfaction) and performance measures. Moderators of virtual team performance are also examined such as task type, time, and social context. These factors have been found to influence performance in a number of ways: for instance, teams with complex or ambiguous tasks may require richer communication media to perform well, and over time teams may be more able to develop interpersonal relationships and trust, which improve performance. Communication research on virtual teams tends to regard communication practices as central in virtual team processes and takes a more discursive, constitutive view of communication that examines how virtual teams are socially constructed or constituted through the communication practices of their members and larger organizational environment. Such an approach situates communication phenomena or technologies as central in scholarly investigations. While epistemological approaches vary among communication scholars, communication studies typically add an emphasis on the diverse historical and cultural contexts of team members and the ways in which they in shape different meanings and interpretations of work processes, as well as power relations that influence which interpretations and assumptions are privileged (Gibbs et al., 2008).

Major dimensions The multifaceted nature of virtuality has been studied by a number of scholars across disciplines. Although selection and definitions of virtuality dimensions vary by scholars, a set of key dimensions has emerged through the review of extant research: geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, cultural and functional diversity, and dynamic structure (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). Despite different terminology for each dimension, prior scholarship has shown shared interests in these key characteristics of virtuality.

Geographic dispersion It is important to note that geographic dispersion includes both spatial dispersion and temporal dispersion, which do not necessarily reflect the same construct. Spatial dispersion is defined as the extent to which team members are distributed across different locations, and it can make an impact on team process and communication dynamics. Spatial dispersion may range from a lower degree such as offices on different floors of the same building to a greater degree such as offices distributed across the globe. Although a lower level of spatial dispersion may still affect team communication processes, greater spatial dispersion is more likely to complicate such processes including knowledge sharing, resource allocation, and team coordination. Lack of proximity is also related to reduced spontaneous conversations and face-to-face interactions. Temporal dispersion refers to the extent to which team members have overlapping work hours; namely, it occurs when members are located across different time zones or observe different work


3

hours based on varied forms of employment (e.g., telework, part-time work). Even though spatial and temporal dispersion often go hand in hand, they do not always overlap. Employees with different work hours may experience temporal dispersion even though they are located in the same time zone. On the contrary, they could be working in the same time zone but in entirely different hemispheres. Temporal dispersion narrows the window for synchronous communication, which may lead to coordination delay. Dispersion has been typically discussed as a team challenge; however, some scholars have demonstrated its positive links to increased job satisfaction, work flexibility, and reduced stress.

Electronic dependence The degree of electronic communication dependence among team members has been one of the most commonly used virtuality constructs. Electronic dependence is defined as the extent to which team members employ CMC tools to execute team processes. Virtual team members utilize a wide variety of CMC tools such as email, instant messaging systems, video conferencing tools, or more complex technology including decision support systems, task management systems, and knowledge management systems. In addition to the level of use, the degree of information value (e.g., communication richness) and synchronicity of communication technology have also been suggested as key elements of virtuality. In other words, heavier reliance on CMC would constitute a greater degree of virtuality. This conceptualization acknowledges that colocated teams can also exhibit high levels of virtuality. In general, however, electronic communication is more essential in geographically distributed teams because technology enables workers to span spatial, temporal, and organizational boundaries. In dispersed teams, members need to strategically implement and utilize different technologies to address their needs; for instance, a balanced mix of asynchronous and synchronous communication can enhance effective communication between members in different time zones. Despite its indispensability, a high level of electronic dependence may bring challenges for managerial control and interpersonal communication (e.g., lack of cues), as well as relationship building and management. Nonetheless, a number of scholars have revealed that electronic dependence can be advantageous for various team processes. Virtual tools can offer digital knowledge repositories that enable immediate access and effective exchange of information in need. Also, virtual teams utilize a variety of technologies to support and streamline team processes and task management. Indeed, virtual teams can develop efficient communication techniques through innovative use of technologies (for a review, see Gibson et al., 2014).

Cultural and functional diversity Cultural diversity encompasses a range of differences in functional cultures, organizational cultures, and national cultures. In the context of virtual teams, national cultures

4


are particularly salient in understanding differential impacts of languages, identities, and cultural value orientations on collaboration among dispersed team members. National diversity can provide a potential source for stereotyping, communication barriers, interpersonal conflicts, and difficulties in achieving agreement and shared understanding. Perceived national cultural difference may also hinder team cohesion and trust building. In globally distributed, culturally diverse teams, members typically face more process challenges and communicative obstacles, especially in the short run. However, scholars have identified various factors that help members realize long-term benefits of this type of cultural diversity. A psychologically safe communication climate (PSCC), trust, and supportive relationships can foster virtual team innovation (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). Also, the use of CMC tools can mitigate the negative impact of cultural barriers and demographic differences through reducing stereotypes as well as providing decision and communication support. Finally, cultural diversity must be understood in context because the impact of cultural diversity on team outcomes may hinge on other contextual influences such as task complexity, as well as team size, tenure, and composition. Research has also examined functional and team/organizational diversity, which generally require additional effort to facilitate team coordination (for a review, see Chudoba et al., 2005). Functional diversity refers to the degree to which different areas of expertise are represented on a team. For instance, a technical business solution development team consists of individuals with different expertise including engineering, user experience design, visual graphic design, and localization. Also, team/organizational diversity is present when members belong to more than a single team or organization. Functional diversity can constrain joint learning and knowledge integration due to disparate assumptions, nonoverlapping backgrounds, and conflicting priorities. However, other research discusses its positive effects on team outcomes such as the sense of indispensability of personal contributions to the team. Organizational cultural diversity may also engender challenges for team coordination due to differing loyalties and competing demands, although interorganizational work arrangements can be advantageous for strategic planning and resource acquisition.

Dynamic structure Dynamic structure indicates the degree of change or turnover among members as well as change in members’ roles and relationships to one another (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). As opposed to traditional teams, virtual team members may experience these changes more often, which may increase the cost of various team processes. Virtual teams are typically replete with external or even temporary connections and often involve dynamic forms of organizing such as alliances, offshoring and outsourcing, and temporary project based work, all of which are flexibly assembled depending on their goals and needs. Relational and structural dynamism is likely to increase uncertainty and perceived risk resulting from frequent changes, which may hinder open communication and knowledge sharing among members. In particular, a higher rate of turnover hampers knowledge integration, relationship maintenance, and preservation of organizational memory. As such, team members often need to redefine


5

their work and relationships to negotiate common ground and task boundaries with others, including new members. A lack of shared history can also make it difficult to assign responsibilities, locate expertise, and plan team development. Given that these challenges are negatively associated with team innovation capabilities, it is important to invest in creating trust, PSCC, and reciprocal relationships to ensure sustained information flow and member commitment. Prior research shows that these efforts can alleviate negative influences of structural changes and enhance peer engagement.

Current research According to recent reviews, key areas of scholarly emphasis in the virtual teams literature that are particularly relevant to communication scholars include subgroups and faultlines, power and status differences, leadership, and communication processes.

Subgroups and faultlines The distribution of virtual teams – especially those that are global – across several geographical locations often leads to the rise of subgroups and social categorization processes that create rifts within the team. For example, us-versus-them dynamics often arise between geographical locations that hinder collaboration between sites (Metiu, 2006). Virtual teams scholars have recognized that it is not diversity per se that matters for team processes and outcomes but how such differences align and coalesce. Faultlines often form along geographical and cultural lines in virtual teams that can trigger ingroup/out-group distinctions (Cramton & Hinds, 2005) and lead to team conflict and biased information sharing (Yilmaz & Peña, 2014). Early research in this area found that demographic differences that are not aligned are not problematic, but when differences such as age and gender align, the opportunities for faultlines to result in subgroups are greater (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). This line of research assumes that subgroups have mostly negative consequences for team processes (such as conflict between subgroups), although benefits of subgroups are starting to be studied as well. Although most research defines faultlines as a static concept, scholars are starting to recognize the dynamic nature of subgroups and alliances, which often change over time depending on team communication practices.

Power and status differences Another key area that is related to subgroups and faultlines is research on power dynamics and status differences in virtual teams. Although power and status are often thought of as two sides of the same coin, according to Blader and Chen (2010) there are conceptual differences between them. Status is an index of the social worth that others ascribe to an individual or a group. It originates externally and is rooted in the evaluations of others. In other words, status means prestige, respect, and esteem that an individual or a group has in the eyes of others. Power, on the other hand, is best

6


conceptualized as control over critical resources. Differences in virtual teams often take on status dynamics that impact team collaboration negatively. Status differences are likely to arise based on several factors: location (headquarters is regarded as higher status than subsidiary locations; Metiu, 2006), language (proficiency in English or other lingua franca), culture (varying work practices or stereotypes), tenure (work experience), or age. In a qualitative field study consisting of interviews with members of a number of teams and hierarchy levels within a global organization, Hinds, Neeley, and Cramton (2014) found that power contests around language increased the likelihood of faultlines becoming salient and causing negative emotional reactions in global teams. For instance, after the organization adopted English as a lingua franca, German colleagues still continued to speak German in meetings and the employees based in the United States felt the Germans did not really respect them. Status dynamics impacting team processes are particularly prominent in virtual teams dispersed globally due to the out of sight, out of mind perception between organizational locations. This happens because global workplace interactions take place through CMC, making it difficult to communicate informally and convey social cues and making interaction more formal. In another field study (Leonardi & Rodriguez-Lluesma, 2013), status differences were found to lead to greater use of occupational stereotypes among globally distributed workers. For instance, Mexican engineers deliberately misrepresented their work styles to US engineers because they perceived the US engineers to be of higher status and made an effort to align their own work styles with stereotypes of what makes a “good US engineer” so that the high status engineers would respect their work. This ended up perpetuating these status differences.

Leadership Another key area of focus is leadership in virtual teams. A dominant approach has focused on identifying competencies and functions of effective leaders, leadership styles, establishing credibility, and monitoring performance. Scholars have identified the need for formal leaders to establish strong interpersonal relationships with team members (Connaughton & Daly, 2005) and to motivate and inspire the team in order to build a collective identity. Scholarship has begun to focus on shared leadership, which involves engaging multiple team members in leadership behaviors (Hoch & Dulebohn, 2013). Given the relative absence of formal hierarchical authority in many virtual teams, which often operate with flattened, matrix, or network forms of organizing, more informal, shared leadership may be more appropriate or effective in such forms. Shared leadership has been associated with collaborative decision making, knowledge sharing, and shared responsibility for outcomes, and team members have been found to be more likely to participate in mutual achievement of goals (Muethel, Gehrlein, & Hoegl, 2012). Virtual teams scholars are moving away from top-down leadership models to examine the role of bottom-up shared leadership, which requires more interaction among team members.


7

Communication processes To overcome challenges arising from virtuality such as team member dispersion and diversity, scholars have examined the role of a variety of interpersonal processes to help facilitate team collaboration. These processes include PSCC, perceived proximity, identification, and trust. Gibson and Gibbs (2006) found that PSCC mitigates the negative effects of virtuality on team innovation. Such a communication climate is characterized by members’ willingness to speak up, provide unsolicited information, bridge differences by being open to different views and perspectives, and take interpersonal risks. Gibson and Gibbs found that virtual teams with such a climate engaged in more open and spontaneous communication and knowledge sharing, which led them to be more innovative. A second mechanism that has been found to help mitigate the effects of virtuality is perceived proximity. Wilson et al. (2008) define perceived proximity as a dyadic construct that reflects an individual’s perception of closeness to other virtual coworkers. This concept extends the theoretical understanding of proximity from objective measures of distance to subjective perceptions. Their research finds that perceptions of proximity are influenced by the degree of communication and social identification between virtual team members. A third communicative mechanism is identification, often regarded as a sense of belonging or attachment to a team or organization. Identification has been found to be particularly critical in virtual teams, as it facilitates coordination and control of employees who are working remotely and not able to be physically monitored (Sivunen, 2006); furthermore, a shared team identity helps to reduce conflict in virtual teams (Mortensen & Hinds, 2001). Identification has also been found to mitigate the negative effects of virtuality on psychological states of virtual workers and help them derive more meaning from their work (Gibson et al., 2011). Finally, similar to identification, trust functions as an informal control mechanism that is often more effective than formal monitoring or authority in decentralized virtual teams (Goodbody, 2005). A form of swift trust has been found to form in successful global teams that facilitates collaboration and productivity among members (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). Trust has been found to improve the efficiency and quality of virtual team projects (Edwards & Sridhar, 2005), increase collaboration (Hossain & Wigand, 2004), and improve productivity (Govarindarajan & Gupta, 2001).

Evolution of virtual teams theory and design Given the growing importance of virtual work and collaboration in organizations, research on virtual teams has garnered significant attention over the past few decades. An extensive amount of work in this field clearly reflects the scholarly endeavor to refine both theoretical and methodological approaches to studying virtual teams. This includes changes in conceptualization, measurement, and research design/method.

8


Conceptualization of virtuality Early research on virtual teams tended to focus on the comparison between “purely” face-to-face teams and CMC teams. However, as a number of scholars have noted, virtuality is not a categorical on–off switch but a continuum ranging from low to high. This conceptualization allows researchers to treat “all” teams as virtual to some extent. Given that even colocated teams may exhibit high levels of electronic dependence, this viewpoint helps move beyond the virtual and face-to-face dichotomy. In this dichotomous view, face-to-face teams are usually privileged and assumed to outperform virtual teams. Whereas much of the early management research on virtual teams relies on cues-filtered-out perspectives that regard text based CMC as deficient compared to face-to-face communication due to its limited socioemotional cues, communication scholars and others in the field have begun to acknowledge the unique benefits and affordances of communication technologies for team processes. Theoretical approaches to understanding technology use in teams are shifting to include perspectives such as the affordances lens and sociomateriality perspectives that more fully recognize the interplay of technology and user in interactions (e.g., Griffith, 2012). Further, while early research used the term virtual loosely to refer to a range of diverse phenomena from technology use to geographical distribution to dynamic structure, scholars in the field have begun to regard virtuality as a multidimensional construct to offer a more nuanced understanding of virtuality that incorporates diverse elements. While early studies often investigated these dimensions individually or left them implicit, multiple dimensions of virtuality are being increasingly recognized and studied, enabling more systematic and rigorous investigations (for a review, see Gibbs & Boyraz, 2015). Although there is not always agreement on what the key dimensions are, attempts to capture multiple dimensions of virtuality have grown (e.g., Chudoba et al., 2005; Gibson & Gibbs, 2006).

Measurement of virtuality Despite conceptual agreement on virtuality as multidimensional, recent meta-analyses reveal that only a few studies empirically operationalize it using more than one dimension. Yet, recent studies have proposed a number of useful methods to assess the varying extent of virtuality. Scholarship is moving away from single indicators of virtuality (such as CMC and face-to-face conditions) to include multi-item measures of virtuality. Another shift is from regarding virtuality as an objective feature of the physical environment to regarding it as subjectively and psychologically perceived and experienced. Early scholarship often assessed objective measures such as the physical distance between office locations, number of time zones crossed, and number of face-to-face meetings or visits. Similarly, the number or ratio of different nationalities/locations was used to determine the team’s cultural or demographic diversity. However, these measures do not necessarily function as a proxy for virtuality because individuals even within the same team can experience virtuality differently based upon their perceptions of a specific dimension or interactions with other members. Measurement of virtuality has shifted to include individual experiences or perceptions of virtuality


9

and how they are related to various team outcomes (Chudoba et al., 2005). In this vein, subjective or individually perceived measures of virtuality have emerged as a new area of interest: for instance, perceived proximity (Wilson et al., 2008), PSCC (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006), perceived functional diversity and structural dynamism, and perceptions of virtuality as they influence psychological states of virtual workers have been introduced to capture different layers of virtuality. This shift is in line with a more constitutive view of virtual teaming as constructed through the communicative interactions among members (Gibbs et al., 2008).

Research design Methodological trends in this area reflect a shifting scholarly focus from lab experiments to field research. The majority of early work is based on experimental designs employing convenient samples (e.g., student teams). These studies generally compared CMC and face-to-face teams to ascertain differences in participation, influence, decision making, performance outcomes, and satisfaction. Findings have been mixed, but CMC teams tend to show more equal participation, greater engagement, and improved idea generation quality although they have more trouble reaching consensus (for a review, see Hollingshead & McGrath, 1995). Lab experiments allow for testing the effect of key variables in controlled settings during a short period of time; however, implications are often limited because ad hoc student teams consist of relatively homogenous populations with no prior history. Field research studies have gained prominence; they incorporate greater complexity of virtual team process, team life cycles, and contextual factors into analysis, although more longitudinal research is needed. Over the past decade, there has been an increase in field based empirical studies that encompass a variety of research sites and professions (for a review, Gilson et al., 2015). Also, scholars have stressed the importance of temporal factors given that potentially adverse effects of virtuality are likely to diminish in the long run, even with student samples. There has been an increase in the range of methods used, including both lab and field, quantitative and qualitative, as well as in the variety of national and organizational contexts studied. Even though much of the research has studied knowledge-intensive workers in engineering or technical fields, studies are branching out to include new contexts such as multiteam systems in the health care and energy fields, emerging technologies such as social media and virtual worlds, multilevel analyses, and computational modeling approaches. Topics such as generational impacts on technology use, virtual worker well-being, and the increasing mobility of workers are also gaining in importance.

Future directions Virtual teams research is heading in several noteworthy directions that are of interest to scholars in organizational communication as well as other disciplines. Current advancements include studies that better integrate virtuality and culture, studies moving toward more dynamic and processual conceptualizations of virtuality, the study of multiteam

10


membership and external networks, and new linguistic and computational methods for capturing communication behavior both within and beyond the team.

Intercultural competence in virtual contexts Despite calls for more integration of virtual and intercultural teams research (Gibson et al., 2014), the research on virtual and multicultural teams remains largely separate. Few studies have examined both virtuality and culture in the same study or theorized the ways in which intercultural interaction occurs in virtual or computer-mediated team settings, or how cultural values and attitudes impact technology use among virtual team members. This is an area for future research to explore. Communication scholars in particular have a depth of knowledge to contribute in this area as they focus on interaction and behavior as something that can be learned through interaction with others.

Examination of dynamic team processes Organizational communication scholars have recognized teaming as a dynamic process that is socially constructed through communication and interaction (Gibbs et al., 2008), though they have only sparsely applied this view to virtual team interaction. The communicative constitution of organizations approach is helpful in explaining the difficult issue of how localized microinteractions produce organizational structures and patterns that endure across time and space (Putnam & Nicotera, 2009). Virtual teams research has evolved to include more field based studies, although more longitudinal studies that examine team processes and change over time are still needed. Such approaches are suited to communication scholars and can help explain processes such as cultural subgroups and how they play out over time. This can help answer important questions such as what conditions result in faultlines remaining dormant or being activated into divisive subgroups over time.

Multiteam membership and external networks Virtual teams research has traditionally focused on within-team interactions and team composition, assuming that employees are members of one team and interact primarily with their teammates. Recently research has recognized that many virtual team members work on multiple teams simultaneously and has made attempts to capture extra-team interactions as well. Social network perspectives and computational/big data approaches show promise for future research that goes beyond intrateam interaction. A social network approach helps capture and analyze communication networks beyond immediate team membership. Examining network configurations and evolution of interteam communication can provide new insights into virtual teams and their broader environments. Moreover, depending on the characteristics of individuals’ networks, their experiences of virtuality and virtual teamwork may vary, showing differences from virtuality measured based on team composition. Following this approach, scholars have examined the relationships between network properties and virtuality, knowledge sharing, expertise recognition, performance, and innovation. A recent


11

study, for instance, found that having too many relationship ties outside the team may be counterproductive due to the greater time and effort required (Margolin et al., 2012).

New methods for capturing communication behavior The virtual teams research has relied heavily on self-reported data from surveys and interviews. Researchers are starting to move toward methods that capture linguistic choices and actual communicative behaviors of team members. For instance, tools for linguistic analysis such as Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (Pennebaker, Mehl, & Niederhoffer, 2003) can be useful in analyzing textual content of emails or other electronic team communication data. Given that the range of technologies used by virtual teams to communicate is expanding to include enterprise social media, virtual worlds, advanced virtual conferencing systems, and other collaborative tools, this provides new opportunities for scholarship to capture data through such tools as well as examining their affordances for virtual teamwork (for a review, see Leonardi, Huysman, & Steinfield, 2013). Scholars are starting to investigate actual communication records through electronic channels such as corpus of texts from emails, conversation histories, and server-level log data. Contrary to self-reported data (e.g., usage frequency), communication records enable in-depth analysis of employee relationships, network formation, communication practices, and knowledge sharing. SEE ALSO: Alternative Forms of Organization and Organizing; Alternative Work Arrangements; Boundary Spanning; Collaboration; Communicative Constitution of Organizations; Conflict, Organizational; Contingent Labor; Coordination; Culture, Organizational; Diversity; Enterprise Social Media; Field Methods; Globalization/Internationalization; Groups and Teams in Organizations; Identification, Organizational; Information and Communication Technologies in Organizations; Intercultural Communication; Interorganizational Communication; Knowledge Management; Leadership in Organizations; Meeting Technologies; Mobility; Networks; Performance; Telework; Trust; Turnover

References Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y. R. (2010). What influences how higher-status people respond to lowerstatus others? Effects of procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and concerns about status. Organization Science, 22(4), 1040–1060. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0558 Chudoba, K. M., Wynn, E., Lu, M., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2005). How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization. Information Systems Journal, 15, 279–306. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00200.x Connaughton, S. L., & Daly, J. (2005). Leadership in the new millennium: Communicating beyond temporal, spatial, and geographical boundaries. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook 29 (pp. 187–213). Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press. Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams: Ethno-centrism or cross-national learning? Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 233–265. doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(04)26006-3

12


Edwards, H. K., & Sridhar, V. (2005). Analysis of software requirements for engineering exercises in a global virtual team setup. Journal of Global Information Management, 13, 21–41. doi:10.4018/jgim.2005040102 Gibbs, J. L., & Boyraz, M. (2015). International HRM’s role in managing global teams. In D. G. Collings, G. Wood, & P. Caligiuri (Eds.), The Routledge companion to international human resource management (pp. 532–551). New York, NY: Routledge. Gibbs, J. L., Nekrassova, D., Grushina, S. V., & Abdul Wahab, S. (2008). Reconceptualizing virtual teaming from a constitutive perspective. In C. S. Beck (Ed.), Communication yearbook 32 (pp. 187–229). New York, NY: Routledge. Gibson, C., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 451–495. Gibson, C. B., Gibbs, J. L., Stanko, T., Tesluk, P., & Cohen, S. G. (2011). Including the “I” in virtuality and modern job design: Extending the job characteristics model to include the moderating effect of individual experiences of electronic dependence and co-presence. Organization Science, 22, 1481–1499. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0586 Gibson, C., Huang, L., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2014). Where global and virtual meet: The value of examining the intersection of these elements in twenty-first-century teams. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 217–244. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091240 Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Young, N. C., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41, 1313–1337. doi:10.1177/0149206314559946 Goodbody, J. (2005). Critical success factors for global virtual teams. Strategic Communication Management, 9, 18–21. Govindarajan, V., & Gupta, A. K. (2001). The quest of global dominance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Griffith, T. L. (2012). Technology and teams: The next ten years. In M. A. Neale & E. A. Mannix (Eds.), Looking back, moving forward: A review of group and team-based research (pp. 245–278). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Hinds, P. J., Neeley, T., & Cramton, C. (2014). Language as a lightning rod: Power contests, emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in global teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 536–561. doi:10.1057/jibs.2013.62 Hoch, J. E., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2013). Shared leadership in enterprise resource planning and human resource management system implementation. Human Resource Management Review, 23, 114–125. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.06.007 Hollingshead, A. B., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Computer-assisted groups: A critical review of the empirical research. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 46–78). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hossain, L. W., & Wigand, R. T. (2004). ICT enabled virtual collaboration through trust. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/ issue1/hossain_wigand.html Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791–815. doi:10.1287/orsc.10.6.791 Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340. doi:10.5465/amr.1998.533229 Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M., & Steinfield, C. (2013). Enterprise social media: Definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 19, 1–19. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12029


13

Leonardi, P. M., & Rodriguez-Lluesma, C. (2013). Occupational stereotypes, perceived status differences, and intercultural communication in global organizations. Communication Monographs, 80(4), 478–502. doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.828155 Margolin, D., Ognyanoya, K., Huang, M., Huang, Y., & Contractor, N. (2012). Team formation and performance on Nanohub: A network selection challenge in scientific communities. In B. Vedres & M. Scotti (Eds.), Networks in social policy problems (pp. 80–100). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Metiu, A. (2006). Owning the code: Status closure in distributed groups. Organization Science, 17, 418–435. doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0195 Minton-Eversole, T. (2012). Virtual teams used most by global organizations, survey says. Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/ orgempdev/articles/pages/virtualteamsusedmostbyglobalorganizations,surveysays.aspx Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. J. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 212–238. doi:10.1108/eb022856 Muethel, M., Gehrlein, S., & Hoegl, M. (2012). Socio-demographic factors and shared leadership behaviors in dispersed teams: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 51, 525–548. doi:10.1002/hrm.21488 Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547–577. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145041 Putnam, L. L., & Nicotera, A. M. (2009). Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication. New York: Routledge. Sivunen, A. (2006). Strengthening identification with the team in virtual teams: The leaders’ perspective. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 345–366. doi:10.1007/s10726-006-9046-6 Wilson, J., O’Leary, M., Metiu, A., & Jett, Q. (2008). Perceptions of proximity in virtual work: Explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies, 29, 979–1002. doi:10.1177/0170840607083105 Yilmaz, G., & Peña, J. (2014). The influence of social categories and interpersonal behaviors on future intentions and attitudes to form subgroups in virtual teams. Communication Research, 41, 333–352. doi:10.1177/0093650212443696

Further reading Bazarova, N. N., & Walther, J. B. (2009). Attributions in virtual groups: Distances and behavioral variations in computer-mediated discussions. Small Group Research, 40, 138–162. doi:10.1177/1046496408328490 Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2012). A theory of subgroups in work teams. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 441–470. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0322 Connaughton, S. L., & Shuffler, M. (2007). Multinational and multicultural distributed teams: A review and future agenda. Small Group Research, 38, 387–412. doi:10.1177/1046496407301970 Gibbs, J. L. (2009). Dialectics in a global software team: Negotiating tensions across time, space, and culture. Human Relations, 62, 905–935. doi:10.1177/0018726709104547 Hinds, P. J., Liu, L., & Lyon, J. (2011). Putting the global in global work: An intercultural lens on the process of cross-national collaboration. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 1–54. doi:10.1080/19416520.2011.586108 Hollingshead, A. B., & Poole, M. S. (2012). Research methods for studying groups: A behind-thescenes guide. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Kirkman, B. L., Gibson, C. B., & Kim, K. (2012). Across borders and technologies: Advancements in virtual teams research. In W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 789–858). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

14


Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805–835. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.05.002 O’Leary, B. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31, 433–452. Timmerman, C. E., & Scott, C. R. (2006). Virtually working: Communicative and structural predictors of media use and key outcomes in virtual work teams. Communication Monographs, 73, 108–136. doi:10.1080/03637750500534396 Weber, M., & Kim, H. (2015). Virtuality, technology use, and engagement within organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 43(4), 385–407. doi:10.1080/00909882.2015.1083604

Jennifer L. Gibbs is professor in the Department of Communication at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Her research focuses on collaboration in global virtual teams and other distributed work arrangements as well as affordances of new communication technologies for strategic communication processes. Her work has been published in leading journals from a variety of disciplines, including Administrative Science Quarterly, American Behavioral Scientist, Communication Research, Communication Yearbook, Computers in Human Behavior, Human Relations, the Information Society, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, and Organization Science. Heewon Kim is assistant professor in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Arizona State University. Her research seeks to address how social networks and technology use can facilitate mobilizing various resources, such as knowledge, expertise, and social support, across social and physical boundaries. Her dissertation focuses specifically on knowledge sharing and networking tactics among distributed workers in the midst of large-scale organizational change. Her work has been published in Journal of Applied Communication Research, International Journal of Communication, and Convergence. Maggie Boyraz is assistant professor in the Department of Communication at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Her research interests lie in the impact of culture and technology on process and outcomes of geographically distributed teams and social implications of technology use in organizations. Her dissertation is about how diversity and distribution in global teams impacts subgroup formation, team processes, and outcomes. Her work has been published in the Atlantic Journal of Communication and The Routledge Companion to International Human Resource Management.