Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
June 2009
Do not reproduce 3
Our Statement of Independence
What We Don’t Do
• We do not charge vendors (or any organizations) to be included in any of our publications.
• We do not charge different prices to vendors and users.
• We do not charge vendors (or any organizations) to quote from our publications in press
releases.
• We do not charge award winners to use their award in marketing.
• We do not allow vendors (or any organizations) included in our publications to make evaluative
statements about themselves. Participating organizations provide factual information only.
• We do not permit any company to sponsor research or a publication in which it is also
participating as a subject.
• We do not benefit in any way from the sales of any products included in our publications or
services.
• We do not provide leads to vendors or assist them in selling.
• We do not serve on the boards of any learning-related companies or benefit financially from
the success of any learning-related company.
We believe that the way we make money allows us to be independent, unbiased, and objective. We
invite you to judge for yourself. We also invite you to contact us with any question about our business
relationships or sources of revenue.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 4
About the Authors
Gary Woodill began as a classroom teacher in 1971, and has been involved with the
use of computers in education since 1974, when he was introduced to the PLATO
system for computer-assisted instruction. In 1984, Gary received a doctorate in
applied psychology from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at the
University of Toronto, and in 1985, he started the first course for teachers on
computers in education at Ryerson University in Toronto. In 1993, he co-founded an
educational multimedia company that developed educational CD-ROMs for children.
In 1998, he designed an adaptable learning management system and has
developed more than 60 online courses for various corporate clients. Gary is
director of Research and Analysis at Brandon Hall Research where he writes reports
on emerging learning technologies. In addition, Gary presents workshops and
Webinars on the topics he is researching. He can be reached at gary@brandon-
hall.com.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 5
Christina Downs is an editor for Brandon Hall Research, where she has worked on e-
learning reports, knowledgebases, newsletters, and Web copy. Christina’s education
includes an M.A. in professional writing from Carnegie Mellon University, a B.A. in
English writing from the University of Pittsburgh, and a B.S in electrical engineering
from the University of Pittsburgh. Her career has included editing, proofreading,
technical writing, and publishing. Christina is also author of the book Simply
Balanced: Bible “Contradictions” Teach Balanced Living. Christina lives in Western
Pennsylvania with her husband and two children. She can be reached at
chris@brandon-hall.com .
June 2009
Do not reproduce 6
Introduction
Brandon Hall Research understands first-hand the benefits and difficulties of
managing virtual teams. At Brandon Hall Research, we have been working as a
virtual team for a number of years. Although we are headquartered in California,
many of our staff members are located across the United States and Canada, and,
for about a year, one researcher even worked from New Zealand. Using a virtual
team approach has worked well for us, but it is not without its difficulties. This
research report looks at the advantages and disadvantages a company faces in
using virtual teams, the process of setting up and managing a virtual team, the
research on the effectiveness of virtual teams, and the technological resources that
are needed to support this type of organization.
In using these tools, we have learned that merely accessing a variety of technologies
is not enough for a virtual team to operate smoothly. Every team member needs to
be committed to making the company and the professional relationships succeed,
and many issues enter into this success. In particular, we have seen that it’s
important to allow social time with each other before working online, to follow an
agenda, to appoint someone to chair each meeting, and to follow up each team
June 2009
Do not reproduce 7
meeting with proper documentation and action items. These actions help ensure
camaraderie and accountability. We are not perfect at these duties and are still
learning as we go, but, as a virtual team, we function very well.
It helps that the members of our virtual team are open to change, particularly
experimenting with new approaches and technologies. The senior analysts are
always on the lookout for new tools that could help our virtual team function better
and that also would lead to lower costs and higher efficiencies. While we also
research and write about these technologies, we don’t adopt them for their own
sakes; rather, we examine them in terms of their impact on the company’s business.
This report is designed to accomplish the following: to pass on the insights of our
experience operating as a virtual team, to review the research on the effectiveness of
virtual teams, and to suggest the best practices and processes if you are considering
setting up a virtual team within your organization. Understanding more about how
successful virtual teams work, including their rewards and pitfalls, will improve your
confidence as you begin.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 8
Part 1 – Pros and Cons of Virtual Teams
Although they may not use the actual term, groups of employees who work together
on a shared project, from a distance using information and communications
technologies (ICT), are known as “virtual teams.” Sometimes they are also called
“offsite teams,” “offsite employees,” “remote teams,” “distance workers,”
“teleworkers,” “telecommuters,” “computer-supported cooperative workgroups,” and
other terms. In this research report, we consistently use the term “virtual teams” to
describe these groups of employees.
Kirkman and Mathieu (2004) define virtual teams as “… groups of workers with
unique skills, who often reside in different geographical places and have to use for
co-operation means of ICT [information and communications technologies] in order
to span the boundaries of time and space.” While using electronic tools is a
necessary part of the definition of virtual teams, most virtual team members do
occasionally meet face-to-face.
In 2005, the same authors defined “team virtuality” as “the extent to which team
members use virtual tools to coordinate and execute team processes, the amount of
informational value provided by such tools, and the synchronicity of team member
virtual interaction” (Kirkman and Mathieu, 2005).
June 2009
Do not reproduce 9
the basic, current structures.” Finally, at the far end of the scale, “virtual
offices/teams” are those without a central physical location for each employee,
where workers use telecommuting to complete part-time virtual work. This is also
known as “hoteling” because space at the central office is temporary and
interchangeable, while the firm’s employees either entirely work at home or are fully
mobile (working from hotels or vehicles and visiting the central office “hotel” on
occasion).
At Brandon Hall Research, most staff members work from home most of the time,
but we also connect at other locations, such as conferences, universities, libraries,
and coffee shops. The world of work has truly become portable, so an employee’s
location is not a critical factor in whether a person can work or not. This is the goal of
cloud computing: that you can work from any location, and still access all the
information you need to carry out your tasks. One reason we consider ourselves a
virtual team is because we share all the characteristics of a virtual team, as
enumerated by Lipnack and Stamps (1997) in their publication of the principles of
virtual teams (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Virtual Team System of Principles
(From Virtual Teams, Lipnack and Stamps, 1997)
June 2009
Do not reproduce 10
Brandon Hall Research employs independent team members who share
accountability at integrated levels of production. We cooperate on shared goals, we
depend on each other to complete tasks, and we deliver concrete results (such as
this report, our learning tool knowledgebases, or the Brandon Hall Webinar series).
We are connected to one another through various media (Internet, cell phone, etc.),
our personal interactions cross state and time-zone boundaries every day to
accomplish our work, and we trust each other to produce agreed-upon deliverables.
Lipnack and Stamps (1997) would certainly consider our organization a virtual team.
Even while individuals work together and separately on shared tasks, within our
organization, we do hold different kinds of virtual team meetings, similar to those
identified by Kimball (1997):
• Project teams - Groups created around a specific task where members are
selected for their expertise and that function for the life of the project.
In these ways and others, virtual teams can connect “islands of knowledge” into “self
organizing, knowledge sharing networked professional communities” that foster
collaboration and spread best practices. At the same time, this requires a new
management mindset that breaks away from the traditional command-and-control
management of teams to a much looser management style that encourages
cooperation and sharing responsibilities among all members of the team. To quote
Geisler (2002):
June 2009
Do not reproduce 11
“The Industrial Age was characterized by hierarchical organizations that
relied on management direction and organizational departmentalization to
provide order and consistency. Rules and auditing processes were important
means of control. Employees’ roles and responsibilities tended to be
specialized and information typically went to management rather than to
employees. Hard work was encouraged more than a balance between work
and home life. Conservative improvements tended to be the norm because
organizational controls typically inhibited risk taking … Unlike rational
organizational structures of the past, teams rely on employee empowerment
rather than management control and direction. Team organizations have
created work structures that are more democratic and flexible with a
common mission of sharing responsibility for results and decisions between
management and workers … Self-managing teams are said to be the key to
leaner and more flexible organizations capable of adjusting rapidly to
changes in the environment and technology.”
Other views suggest different ways to categorize virtual teams. For example, Duarte
and Snyder (2007) list the types of virtual teams by the kind of work they do:
• Networked teams
• Parallel teams
• Service teams
• Management teams
• Action teams
June 2009
Do not reproduce 12
Benefits of Virtual Teams
As companies become more global and operate in dispersed geographic areas,
virtual teams have become almost indispensable for businesses. The expertise
needed to fulfill a company’s mission can now be drawn from almost anywhere in
the world. Virtual teams generated new modes of communication that have, in turn,
influenced the way people work. For example, reliable asynchronous
communications allow team members to work different shifts in a continuous
workflow.
Economic benefits of virtual teams include reducing the amount of time needed to
complete a job, reducing workspace costs, developing products more efficiently,
increasing productivity, providing better customer service, improving access to global
markets, and benefiting the environment due to reduced travel (Horwitz, et al.,
2006). “People can be recruited for their competencies, not just physical location”
(Gould, 2006). In many cases, physical disabilities also become irrelevant because of
an employee’s ability to work from home in a virtual team.
Virtual teams make businesses more flexible in that virtual teams can adapt rapidly
to changing circumstances. “Gaining competitive advantage in a global environment
means continually reshaping the organization to maximize grants, address threats,
and increase speed. The use of virtual teams has become a common way of doing
this,” contend Duarte and Snyder in their 2007 book, Mastering Virtual Teams. “The
goal is to leverage intellectual capital and apply it as quickly as possible.”
• Expertise (finding the best people without limiting hiring to specific locations)
June 2009
Do not reproduce 13
Issues in Managing Virtual Teams
Despite the many benefits, not all virtual teams perform well, and some fail at their
tasks. Nemiro et al. (2008) identify the six major challenges of virtual teams as
distance, time, technology, culture, trust, and leadership. Beyerlein et al. (2008) say
the following about the failure of virtual teams:
Gerda Mihhailova (2007) notes that “turning ordinary teamwork fully (or at least
partially) into virtual teamwork introduces a whole new range of problems for
managers.” Virtual teams can be “communication challenged, culturally challenged,
and task challenged” (Malhotra, 2003). Most problems don’t stem from the fact that
virtual teams use technologies for maintaining contact but, rather, from the changing
nature of how the teams function in the workplace. Teams are no longer fixed
entities, drawn entirely from within an organization. Instead, employees may be part
of several different teams, with members distributed throughout the organization
and beyond, in varying geographical locations. Such teams may form and reform
continuously, resulting in multiple reporting relationships for each team member.
We are just beginning to learn how to manage the complexity of virtual teams, so it
should not surprise us that a number of issues or problems can arise from these new
forms of organizational collaboration. The 2004 review of the literature on virtual
teams by Powell, et al. revealed a number of issues that practitioners should be
aware of in setting up and managing a virtual team. These issues include the
following:
Do not reproduce 14
• Cultural differences among team members
• Training
• Relationship building
• Team cohesion
• Communications
• Coordination
• Task-Technology-Structure Fit
• Team performance
Initial design and composition of the team - Teams need to develop a shared
language and a shared understanding of the team tasks. Teambuilding exercises,
shared norms, and a clear team structure all contribute to the success of a virtual
team.
Technical expertise and its effect on team performance - Lack of technical expertise
and the inability to overcome technical problems negatively impact an individual’s
satisfaction with the team experience and negatively impacts performance.
Training - Consistent training among all team members improves the team’s
performance. Early training also can foster cohesiveness, trust, teamwork,
commitment, and satisfaction, and can improve the quality of decisions.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 15
Relationship building - Compared to traditional teams, members of virtual teams
generally report weaker relational links to other members of the team. Over time,
however, this can change, especially if face-to-face meetings also occur among team
members early in a project. It also helps if team members send social
communications among themselves in addition to task-oriented messages.
Team cohesion - Cohesion among team members has been associated with better
performance and greater satisfaction of team members. At least one study has
shown that women in virtual teams receive greater team cohesiveness compared
with men in virtual teams.
Trust among team members - Developing trust is a big issue in virtual teams, as it is
often hard to assess the trustworthiness of team members if you have never met
them. For many virtual teams, trust needs to develop quickly. Interestingly, in virtual
teams, many members initially assume the others are trustworthy unless indicators
suggest they are not.
Coordination - Coordination has been linked to virtual team performance, and the
difficulties that virtual teams face have been studied extensively. Coordination
difficulties have been attributed to working across time zones, mixing different
cultures, and including members with “divergent mental models.”
Team performance – Most studies show little significant difference between the
performance of virtual teams and face-to-face teams. However, in one study, virtual
June 2009
Do not reproduce 16
teams generated more ideas than traditional teams. On the other hand, virtual
teams often take longer to reach decisions.
Satisfaction of team members – The results on this factor are mixed, with some
studies showing greater satisfaction for each type of team. Satisfied virtual team
members were more likely to have been given training and used more
communications methods than those team members who felt less satisfied.
DeRosa, et al. (2004) say that “… the lack of physical interaction results in reduced
verbal, social, status cues that are typically present in face-to-face (FTF)
communication.” This occurs due to the difficulty in creating a sense of “shared
space” with virtual teams. Leadership issues can arise, as many virtual teams form
for short periods of time and witness many changes in membership. Virtual team
managers need to learn new skills, including new ways to monitor employees,
provide feedback, and resolve conflicts. Team building exercises seem especially
important for managers of virtual teams to master.
Because virtual team members rarely see each other during meetings, members can
often be multitasking. Christina Wasson (2004), an anthropologist who studied
multitasking in virtual groups, contends that both merits and problems arise when
virtual team members multitask during online meetings. She suggests that
multitasking can be used in the following circumstances:
June 2009
Do not reproduce 17
According to Wasson, “under these two conditions, multitasking enhances the
productivity of the organization as a whole.” Additional conditions for multitasking
include the following:
1. When other activities, which are considered barriers between the virtual
meeting and the participant’s local space, are performed appropriately, then
these activities in the local space will not interfere with the meeting.
3. Multitasking only succeeds when the meeting activity does not absorb the full
attention of the participant.
4. The topic of the meeting conversation must be less critical to the hearer
during those times when he or she engages in multitasking.
3. Team members have no idea other work is being done, so no one feels they
are being ignored, as can happen during onsite meetings when a member’s
attention wavers.
4. Team members tend to feel less bored during meetings, an issue that also
can be addressed by more effectively designing and holding meetings,
whether onsite or online.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 18
5. Employees may feel as though they accomplish more, lessening the stress of
a heavy workload – in turn, helping the person work more calmly with less
stress.
3. Meeting participants give too much of their attention to local office activities,
with too little attention left to adequately attend to the meeting.
Wasson then suggests solutions to each of these five problem areas. One solution to
all of the problems discussed above is to effectively use information technology to
support the way virtual teams function. Malhotra (2004) lists four ways the IT
department can support how virtual teams function:
In summary, while virtual teams differ from traditional teams in important ways, and,
while problems arise, these differences and problems can usually be overcome with
effective leadership, ongoing management, individual accountability, and
appropriate technology.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 19
Part 2 – Effectively Managing Virtual Teams
Effectively managing virtual teams starts with leaders who can confidently lead
without being overly involved in every detail of a project. That is because the
members of virtual teams need to be trusted to do much of the work on their own,
and to be able to manage their time and tasks without extensive supervision. This
combination of flexible leadership, trust, and personal responsibility is critical for a
virtual team to work successfully. Nemiro et al. (2008) comment:
June 2009
Do not reproduce 20
Leading Virtual Teams
DeRosa, et al. (2004) say that, for virtual teams, “… the lack of physical interaction
results in reduced verbal, social, status cues that are typically present in face-to-face
(FTF) communication.” This occurs because it is difficult to create a sense of “shared
space” with virtual teams. Leadership issues can arise, as many virtual teams form
for short periods of time and witness many changes in membership. Virtual team
managers need to learn new skills, including new ways to monitor employees,
provide feedback, and resolve conflicts. Compared to face-to-face teams, managing
virtual teams, especially those in virtual worlds, requires a different approach or
touch. For example, part of the shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 technologies has been
the change in emphasis from individual learning to team-based collaborative
learning. This represents a fundamental shift in how learning occurs, as we move
from a model of instructor-led teaching of individuals to one of learner-led finding,
doing, and collaborating in small groups. Virtual team managers need to understand,
and even embrace, these differences. With this shift, all leaders need to continually
evolve, regardless of whether they are virtual or onsite.
Michael Fullan (2001), in his influential book, Leading in a Culture of Change, states,
“The more complex society gets, the more sophisticated leadership must become.”
Leadership in virtual worlds is not about traditional “command and control”
structures, but about providing direction and support to team members when and
where it is needed. Even further, virtual leadership involves fostering the leadership
of others, and individuals are given even more responsibility for managing their own
work. With this increased responsibility comes the need for both managers and
individuals to recognize, from both sides, when manager support or intervention is
necessary.
Because problems in today’s society have become so complex, and are constantly
changing, the old image of a “seasoned warrior” leading the troops into battle simply
no longer works. As Thomas Homer-Dixon (2000) wrote in The Ingenuity Gap, “We
demand that [leaders] solve, or at least manage, a multitude of interconnected
problems that can develop into crises without warning; we require them to navigate
June 2009
Do not reproduce 21
an increasingly turbulent reality that is, in key aspects, literally incomprehensible to
the human mind; we buffet them on every side with bolder, more powerful special
interests that challenge every innovative policy idea; we submerge them in often
unhelpful and distracting information; and we force them to decide and act at an
ever faster pace.” (p. 15)
Leading a virtual team takes a special person with multiple skill sets. Nemiro et al.
(2008) suggest that effective leaders of virtual teams must carry out at least six
different roles in doing their jobs:
• Coach: Help team members develop their own potential and ensure
accountability in others
• Barrier buster: Open doors and run interference for the team
• Facilitator: Bring together necessary tools, information, and resources for the
team to get the job done
• Results catalyst: Help the team improve performance and achieve positive
results
According to Michael Fullan, true leadership contains the following five components:
Moral purpose – Doing good is good for business; leaders need to remember that
organizations are communities of humans.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 22
Understanding change – Change involves both messiness and creative
breakthroughs. Leaders expect and know how to cope with both.
Coherence making – In the end, a leader is the person who makes the best sense of
a complex situation, helping a team sort out what is happening, understand the
context of an issue, and move in a specific direction to solve a problem.
Susan E. Kogler Hill (2007), writing on team leadership, identifies three important
decisions that any leader must make:
She then enumerates the factors that make any team effective:
• A results-driven structure
• Unified commitment
• A collaborative climate
• Standards of excellence
June 2009
Do not reproduce 23
• Principled leadership
June 2009
Do not reproduce 24
Creating Virtual Teams
So, your company has decided to create a virtual team? Whatever your reasons – be
they to recruit the best talent, increase productivity, or simply test the waters – you
need to know where to begin. Duarte and Snyder (2007) suggest it takes six steps to
start a virtual team:
2. Develop a team charter that includes the team’s purpose, mission, and goals.
Within those steps, additional actions and goals may pertain specifically to your
organization. In particular, establishing communication channels is important. David
Gould (2006) provides the following tips from his research on forming virtual teams:
• Establish a clear code of conduct or set of norms and protocols for behavior.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 25
Creating a virtual team is merely the first step in what is generally considered a five-
part process of group development (Lee-Kelley et al., 2004). These distinct stages
include the following:
Storming – As the group starts to jell and work together, a struggle often ensues to
sort out issues of power, influence, and position in the hierarchy.
Norming – The group settles down when a system of mutually acceptable rules is
implemented.
Performing – The team concentrates on the tasks for which it was formed.
Adjourning – This stage happens when the group winds down its work and disbands,
or when the composition of the group significantly changes, as members leave and
are replaced, necessitating a new “re-forming” stage.
Virtual teams may or may not go through all of these stages. The storming stage may
be absent, for example, if roles are already clearly laid out and if members don’t
have the same opportunity to “lock horns” that can occur in a face-to-face group. Yet,
developing trust is a critical issue in virtual teams, specifically due to the lack of cues
commonly used to make judgments about other group members. How are you going
to get along with this person? Will that person turn reports in on time? Does “John”
have my back if I’m called away on an emergency? These questions and others are
difficult to answer when you can’t stand nose-to-nose with another person, working
physically alongside them every day and viewing their facial expressions and work
habits. Trust needs to be earned, on both sides of any relationship. In a professional
setting, particularly a virtual one, how do team members learn to trust one another?
June 2009
Do not reproduce 26
Facilitating Trust in Virtual Teams
Developing trust among team members is critical for virtual teams to function at
optimal effectiveness. This trust comes with time, as members learn about each
other. In our virtual teams, conversations, meetings, and e-mails usually contain a lot
of humor, which is one sign of high levels of trust among team members.
Liz Lee-Kelley and her colleagues demonstrated that moving from one stage to the
next might depend on the number and frequency of face-to-face meetings. Such
physical encounters seem critical in developing trust in virtual teams. In a study
based on 12 case studies, Sirkka Jarvenpaa, professor of information systems at the
University of Texas at Austin, and Dorothy Leidner, associate professor of information
systems at INSEAD, a graduate business school in France, identified nine behaviors
that facilitated trust in teams. These trust building behaviors include the following:
1. Communicating Socially
5. Communicating Predictably
7. Displaying Leadership
June 2009
Do not reproduce 27
These behaviors suggest that new virtual teams should provide opportunities to
interact socially right from the start, and should go the extra mile to resolve any early
technical difficulties or task confusion. Doing so will help new team members feel
more comfortable, leading to the other two early trust building attitudes: enthusiasm
and initiative. Over time, as a team progresses, additional trust building behaviors
can be added to expand the initial trust and to transition to a more mature virtual
team.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 28
Managing Virtual Teams
Leading and managing a virtual team can be more difficult than contending with a
face-to-face group. Obviously, one big problem with being in charge of a virtual team
is the difficulty understanding and managing what you cannot see. In a recent
Canadian study (Hambley et al., 2007), qualitative data were collected through
comprehensive interviews with nine virtual team leaders and members from six
different organizations. The most common challenge appears to involve solving
problems across multiple time zones. Study participants also believed poor leaders
lacked vision, strategy, and direction, and that poor leaders were unable to run
effective virtual team meetings or to “read” and “hear” cues from team members
while using virtual conferencing software.
Other issues involved with leading virtual teams include the following:
• Fear of isolation
With so many potential issues, how can virtual leaders ensure success? What does it
take to lead and manage a virtual team? Joyce Thompsen (2000) argues it takes at
least the following five skills:
June 2009
Do not reproduce 29
• Coordinating/collaborating across organizational boundaries
Because virtual leaders can use all the help they can get, the following are 17
“pointers” Kevin McMahan (2005) shares for managing a virtual team:
• Consider servant leadership exposure and training for potential team leaders.
• Strive for a good faith effort in complying with the team norms and
commitments, be honest in team negotiations, and don’t take advantage of
others or of the situation.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 30
• Record and share the “context” when sharing information, preferably with a
view toward future audiences.
• Design and integrate tools that fit the team environment; don’t force the
team to adapt its behavior to the “latest” software.
Leadership also can be shared within a virtual team so that no one person actually
manages the functioning of the group. When no designated leader is assigned for a
group, we say the group has “shared leadership” or is “self-managed.” A longitudinal
study of virtual teams at three North American universities showed “high performing
self-managed virtual teams displayed significantly more leadership behaviors over
time compared to their low performing counterparts. Specifically, these teams
displayed significantly more concentrated leadership behavior focused on
performance (i.e., “producer” behavior) and shared leadership behavior focused on
keeping track of group work (i.e., “monitor” behavior) than the lower performing
teams” (Carte et al., 2006).
A study of 13 culturally diverse global virtual teams found that effective team leaders
“… demonstrate the capability to deal with paradox and contradiction by performing
multiple leadership roles simultaneously (Kayworth and Leidner, 2002). Specifically,
the study showed the following:
“… highly effective virtual team leaders act in a mentoring role and exhibit a
high degree of understanding (empathy) toward other team members. At the
same time, effective leaders are also able to assert their authority without
June 2009
Do not reproduce 31
being perceived as overbearing or inflexible. Finally, effective leaders are
found to be extremely effective at providing regular, detailed, and prompt
communication with their peers and in articulating role relationships
(responsibilities) among the virtual team members.” (p. 7)
Much advice about leading virtual teams revolves around fostering positive and
respectful relationships among team members who hold each other accountable and
support each other through difficult situations. The same also holds true of
professional relationships in the onsite workplace, but virtual relationships face
unique challenges that take more work to maintain and nurture. But, if a virtual team
is right for your organization, the rewards can be worth the effort.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 32
Part 3 – Research on the Effectiveness of Virtual Teams
Do virtual teams work as effectively as face-to-face teams? That is an important
question to answer before investing time, energy, and money setting up and
managing a virtual team. The answer can be explored via empirical studies based on
both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Because no single one-size-fits-
all approach will be effective for every organization, both qualitative and quantitative
data are necessary to provide guidelines that can help you determine if a virtual
team might succeed in your company.
• Clarifying team goals and team roles that do not conflict with commitments
to other work units
June 2009
Do not reproduce 33
virtual team performance. Perhaps the most important factor in the success of
virtual teams is the opportunity to occasionally meet face-to-face, because
relationships are so critical. One research study concludes that “… wholly virtual
teams might not meet organizational expectations and achieve the same levels of
performance and success as those that, whilst being geographically dispersed, are
able to meet at critical times” (Lee-Kelley et al., 2004). It seems that virtual teams
need face-to-face meetings for members to get to know each other and to develop
trust. “The virtual teamworking technologies alone may have limited scope in
contributing to reproduction and reinforcement of commitment and personal trust
relationships” (Nandhakumar and Baskerville, 2006).
Dispersed workers often experience isolation and other challenges that can impede
effective functioning. They need a “human touch.” A recent study found that many
virtual teams need special leadership, that trust is essential, that teambuilding
exercises pay off, and that, unless a combination of high-tech and high-touch is
maintained, performance peaks are often followed by declines in the productivity
(Hawkrigg, 2007). Again, relationships matter in the workplace. People need to feel
connected to each other.
At the same time, virtual teams can be over managed. Essentially, virtual teams
need to be self-directed by highly motivated individuals who can mostly work on their
own. Best practices for virtual team members include “… supporting other team
members, communicating effectively, and having a variety of specific skills.
Interviewees sought a respectful team environment where members weren’t afraid
to openly discuss ideas, where people could be reached, and where team members
responded appropriately to requests for help. Effective communication involved
transferring ideas, sharing information, listening to and internalizing the ideas of
others, and notifying team members of any problems or issues” (Staples and
Webster, 2007). However, “… even though many SMWTs [self-managed work teams]
are largely self-managed, external leadership may be fundamental to the
performance of these teams … successful external managers provided clear
objectives, established a climate of mutual trust by emphasizing the development of
June 2009
Do not reproduce 34
strong relationships with team members, and did not engage in micromanagement
of the team” (DeRosa et al., 2004),
How do virtual teams process information? This question may shed some light on
whether a team is effective or ineffective. Information and communications
technologies affect information processing in virtual teams in two ways. First, the
communication technology impacts the pool of knowledge and its use in virtual
teams. Second, virtual communication has “an indirect effect on the way teams
process information because the communication environment influences team
processes, the emergence of trust and cohesion, and information processing
capabilities” (Curseu, 2008). A 2006 study of a collaborative project between two
international business communication classes at U.S. and German universities
compared a number of online communication channels (e-mail, discussion boards,
online chats), evaluated each channel’s effectiveness for virtual teamwork, and
reflected upon the various aspects of the learning process (Gareis, 2006). This study
determined that U.S. students preferred e-mail as a forum for professional
communication, while German students preferred discussion boards.
This same study uncovered one major benefit to online communication vs. face-to-
face communication: “Online written communication promoted equal participation of
group members,” an equalizing effect that “is not only beneficial for shy students, but
also for non-native speakers of English who may have trouble responding quickly in
spoken conversation or who may be worried about their accents. … A related finding
is that asynchronous communication seems to have a positive effect on language
accuracy and its mitigating intercultural miscommunication. …”
We can see that the tools used in virtual teams do benefit team members, indirectly
supporting the effectiveness of a virtual team. However, these online tools benefit
onsite and virtual teams alike. The point is not necessarily which online
communication medium is best but how communication, overall, is used effectively
in virtual teams. That effectiveness comes back to how a team is managed.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 35
Summary: Success Factors for Managing Virtual Teams
In the end, most of the recommendations for successfully managing virtual teams
are fairly similar. Our research highlighted three sets of recommendations.
Combined, they cover most of the major points on how to lead and manage a virtual
team.
Melymuka (1997) suggests that the following factors are present in successful virtual
teams:
• Communicating emotions
Compare these points to Staples and Webster’s (2007) list of “organizational best
practice items” for virtual teams:
• Teams are provided with adequate resources (e.g., funding, people, and skill
variety) to meet their objectives.
• People are recognized for their contributions and are fairly rewarded.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 36
• The company provides adequate electronic communication skills training for
the team.
• The company provides adequate customer service training for the team.
• The company provides adequate remote coordination skills training for the
team.
In summary, the TechRepublic.com Web site (Mochal, 2007) provides 10 tips for
managing virtual teams:
• Communicate.
In the end, you need to select the suggestions that best apply to your individual
situation. You also must remain open to change if one method doesn’t work or if a
new technology aims to provide a greater benefit. As the recommendations show,
commitment and accountability tempered with flexibility and communication are
critical factors in helping any virtual team succeed. Moreover, the effectiveness of a
June 2009
Do not reproduce 37
virtual team always depends on the effectiveness of the interpersonal relationships
among its members.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 38
Part 4 - Technology for Supporting Virtual Teams
Part of the shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 has been the change in emphasis from
individual learning to team-based collaborative learning. This represents a
fundamental shift in how learning occurs, as we move from a model of instructor-led
teaching of individuals to one of learner-led finding, doing, and collaborating in small
groups.
Working in teams is one of many different ways to collaborate. Timothy Butler and
David Coleman (2003) suggest five fundamental models of working together:
• Solicitation (a few people place requests, many respond, e.g., a Request for
Proposal [RFP] system)
All five of these methods can be used in a virtual world setting that is purpose-built
for working together. All five of these methods also require technology appropriate to
the purpose of that method. Hundreds of vendors produce and sell products that
allow teams to work together online. These technology products can be divided into
the following categories:
The following is a list of the best known tools in each of the above categories:
June 2009
Do not reproduce 39
Web Collaborative Software
This software group includes online collaborative working environments, group
document sharing and management tools, calendars and scheduling software, task
management software, and computer-supported collaborative learning
environments. The following list highlights some of the best known software
currently being used in corporate environments.
Annotea – This is a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) LEAD (Live Early Adoption
and Demonstration) project under Semantic Web Advanced Development (SWAD).
Annotea enhances collaboration via shared metadata-based Web annotations,
bookmarks, and their combinations.
http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea
http://www.avecomm.com
Backpack – An organizational tool that enables collaboration with others, this Web-
based service lets users make to-do lists, jot down notes, share files, and upload
photos. Users can share Backpack pages with others by e-mailing the page address
to the other person. It also provides Short Message Service (SMS)/text message
reminders.
http://www.backpackit.com
Bright Idea – These software products assist managers in all areas of innovation,
with templates and workflows for product development, intellectual property
management, expert location, and information technology adoption.
http://www.brightidea.com
June 2009
Do not reproduce 40
http://www.centraldesktop.com
http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/solutions/collaboration.jsp
http://www.opencroquet.org
http://www.dabbleboard.com
Digité Enterprise – This tool offers real-time collaboration through Web access,
instant messaging, discussion forum, alerts, flexible workflow, robust document
management, and a meeting manager.
http://www.digite.com
http://collaboration.engineering.com
June 2009
Do not reproduce 41
integration (Microsoft Office and Outlook); and integration with SharePoint and BEA
WebLobic.
http://www.emc.com/products/family/eroom-family.htm
http://www.exactamerica.com/esynergy
http://www.flypaper.com
Gliffy – This tool provides the ability to do diagramming in a Web browser, with
collaborators able to add to and change the diagrams.
http://www.gliffy.com
Google Apps – Google Docs, Google Video, and Google Sites complement traditional
office software to make teamwork easier. Companies or departments can use these
apps on their own to be more productive, an example of the new “cloud computing”
or “Software as a Service” (SaaS) model of collaborative computing.
http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/index.html
http://www.gordano.com/products/Collaboration.htm
June 2009
Do not reproduce 42
or exchange of text, voice, video, data, and applications between participating
hotComm users on the Web.
http://www.hotcomm.com/hotComm.asp
http://www.hyperoffice.com
IBM Lotus QuickPlace - A Web-based solution for creating team workspaces for
collaboration. IBM also is a pioneer in using virtual worlds for team collaboration and
training.
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/i/software/quickr
http://www.ibm.com/virtualworlds/innovationinvirtualworld.shtml
IceMAIL – Features of this enterprise class e-mail and collaboration system for small
businesses include the following: shared calendars, contacts, folders, and Microsoft
Outlook integration.
http://www.icewebonline.com/icemail_home.asp
In-team – This company offers tools and modules to support teams in a variety of
environments. Its virtual “meeting room” can be embedded in existing infrastructures
and customized in terms of look-and-feel.
http://www.inteam.com/info
http://www.interwoven.com/components/pagenext.jsp?topic=PRODUCT::WORKSITE
June 2009
Do not reproduce 43
JDH Web-4M – This collaboration suite for business or training/education is an
integrated suite of multiuser, peer-to-peer, and groupware tools for synchronous
course delivery and instructor/student interaction.
http://www.jdhtech.com
http://www.oodrive.fr/index.php?menu=our-solutions&submenu=collaborative-
intranet
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-ca/windowsserver/sharepoint/default.aspx
Near-Time – Near-Time integrates a group Weblog with wiki pages, team events, and
shared files in a hosted and secure collaborative environment. Create a Near-Time
space to share ideas, resources, and files; author and review pages individually and
across the group; schedule and track events and activities; organize and discover
content through categories and tags; and publish and broadcast your content to the
Web.
http://www.near-time.com
Do not reproduce 44
http://www.nexprise.com
http://www.novell.com/products/groupwise
Open Text – Open Text provides Enterprise Content Management (ECM) solutions
that support collaboration and document management combined together. It allows
managers to tightly control the project lifecycle by monitoring due dates, milestones,
tasks, and priorities and by receiving on-the-spot status reports.
http://www.opentext.com
http://www.oracle.com/products/middleware/beehive/index.html
http://www.courseforum.com
http://www.forumone.com/section/services/projectspaces
June 2009
Do not reproduce 45
participants are provided access to a suite of powerful tools that enable a group to
effectively get organized, share knowledge, and communicate.
http://www.ramius.net/welcome.cfm
Same-Page eStudio – eStudio is a hybrid solution that offers more than 30 software
features needed for effective collaboration. eStudio does not require an IT
department to maintain it. The eStudio administrator tightly controls user access.
Staff members can access the components they require to work effectively, while
customers view only the data that is relevant to their company interaction.
http://www.same-page.com
http://www.novell.com/promo/sitescape.html
http://www.swirrl.com
http://www.teamspace.com
June 2009
Do not reproduce 46
local or remote offices, members of a team within an enterprise, or an external
business partner.
http://www.teamware.net/Resource.phx/teamware/index.htx
http://www.teamworklive.com
Trichys WorkZone – WorkZone is the easy-to-use extranet for organizing and sharing
work with clients, project teams, and business partners. Designed specifically for the
non-technical user, WorkZone can be accessed from any Web-enabled computer
(Mac or PC) and requires no additional hardware or software.
http://www.trichys.com
http://www.webcrossing.com/Home/products.htm
http://www.webasyst.net
Zoho Virtual Office – This groupware provides a virtual collaboration platform where
individuals and groups can communicate, collaborate, organize, and share
information seamlessly using a number of useful applications such as e-mail client,
June 2009
Do not reproduce 47
virtual storage for documents, personal and group calendar, task scheduler, contacts
manager, instant messaging, discussions board, etc.
http://www.zoho.com/virtual-office/index.html?ad-main
Ace Project – This intuitive project management software for work teams works with
Microsoft Project, and can be hosted or installed on your intranet.
http://www.aceproject.com
http://www.activecollab.com
http://www.acunote.com
http://www.basecamphq.com
June 2009
Do not reproduce 48
http://www.managepro.com
http://www.onproject.com
http://www.opmcreator.com
ProjectDox – This easy-to-use database neatly stores and organizes project files,
giving all team members constant online access to needed information.
http://www.projectdox.com
http://www.project-open.com
http://www.peoplecube.com
June 2009
Do not reproduce 49
http://quickbase.intuit.com/home/video
http://www.teamdynamix.com/CollaborationProducts/Products.aspx
June 2009
Do not reproduce 50
Conferencing and Meeting Software
Conferencing software mainly focuses on live communications among members of a
virtual team. The software may be a suite of applications that include a whiteboard,
voice over IP (VoIP) capabilities, text chat, and the display of slides or it may be a
solution containing only one or two of these features.
Adobe Connect – Securely share presentations and multimedia right from your
desktop, and get feedback from hundreds of participants — all using a Web browser
and Adobe Flash.
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatconnectpro
AT&T Connect – AT&T Connect delivers unlimited voice, Web, and videoconferencing.
Share and collaborate on any application or document in real time. Lead or attend
virtual classes with full moderator control and participant interaction features.
Record classes and live Webcasts.
http://www.interwise.com/att_connect.html
http://www.bantu.com/services/faq_basics.php
http://www.telnetz.com/bridgepoint.asp
http://www.budgetconferencing.com
June 2009
Do not reproduce 51
Campfire – This is a simple-to-use instant messaging software for businesses.
http://campfirenow.com
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/ps5664/ps5669/index.html
http://www.communiqueconferencing.com/internet_conferencing.asp
http://www.elluminate.com
eZmeeting – Features of this live meeting and Web conferencing tool include the
following: interactive data collaboration; universal file viewer (to view, share, and
mark up Microsoft Office documents); drawing tools; presentation tools, including
whiteboards, snapshots, and images; an interactive whiteboard; desktop sharing;
and corporate instant messaging.
http://www.ezmeeting.com
Facilitate – This solution supports online meetings and collaboration with a set of
tools for brainstorming, categorizing, voting, conducting surveys, and creating action
plans.
http://www.facilitate.com
Genesys Meeting Center – This center features audio, video, and Web conferencing
specialists.
http://www.genesys.com
June 2009
Do not reproduce 52
Glance Corporate – Glance is a simple, quick desktop sharing tool for hosting live
Web demos, sales presentations, and more. Features include the following: shared
documents, e-mail invites, instant messaging, session reports, and phone use.
http://www.glance.net/site/getglance/examples.asp
GoToMeeting – With this online meeting solution for sharing desktop resources, Web
conferencing, and collaboration, you can host or attend an online meeting within
seconds.
https://www.gotomeeting.com
http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/us/en/halo/index.html
http://www.intralinks.com
iVocalize Web Conference – This tool enables interactive Web conference meetings,
online seminars, e-learning classrooms, and presentations to audiences spanning
the globe. It is also multilingual.
http://www.ivocalize.com
June 2009
Do not reproduce 53
keyboard and voice chat, transparency tools, attendee lists, hand raising, remote
control, and a change presenter ability.
http://www.linktivity.com
MeetingOne – MeetingOne is a full service audio and Web conferencing provider that
focuses on event solutions. This powerful, easy-to-use Web conferencing solution
allows users to share and present any printable document, any application, or an
entire desktop.
http://www.meetingone.com/us
PGi Netspoke – PGi Netspoke provides Web and audio conferencing services.
http://www.premiereglobal.com/conferencing/web-conferencing/netspoke
http://www.radvision.com
http://www.q2learning.com
Saba Centra – This online learning environment combines a highly interactive virtual
classroom learning, e-meeting, and Web seminar platform to enable e-learning and
collaborative Web conferencing across the globe.
http://www.saba.com/centra-saba
Skype – Make free calls over the Internet, or set up a video link between two people.
Use the instant messaging function with or without voice communications.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 54
http://www.skype.com
Socialcast – Communicate and share information any time, anywhere. It works with
mobile devices.
http://www.socialcast.com
http://www.spiderwebcommunications.com/index.asp
http://www.voxwire.com
Vyew – This platform enables real-time and always-on interaction between people
and content.
http://vyew.com/site
http://www.webex.com
WebTrain – This includes Web conferencing and collaboration solutions and a virtual
classroom. Present courseware in a synchronous online environment, set up labs and
conduct quizzes, present PowerPoint slideshows, share other applications, tour Web
sites, show rich multimedia content and documents, and provide effective distance
education at a fraction of the cost of traditional classroom courses. Training can be
June 2009
Do not reproduce 55
conducted in multiple simultaneous languages in the same training session, course,
or meeting.
http://www.webtrain.com
Wimba Collaboration Suite – This full-featured, live virtual classroom supports audio,
video, application sharing, and content display. It enables users to hold live, online
classes, office hours, guest lectures, Webcasts, and meetings.
http://www.horizonwimba.com
WiZiQ – This virtual classroom tool provides good VoIP and some additional features
to rival the big vendors, including a full-featured whiteboard.
http://www.wiziq.com
At the end of the day, support for virtual teams is mostly about overcoming three
kinds of distance — physical, operational, and social. Physical distance refers to the
geographical and time zone differences that can be overcome through the right
combination of electronic technologies; operational distance is the barriers within an
organization due to different job functions; and social distance is the result of
cultural barriers and prejudices. The latter two are harder to solve with technology
alone. All three require the effective leadership and management of virtual teams.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 56
References
Baker, Edward (2007). When Teams Fail: The virtual distance challenge.
Strategy+Business, May 22.
Beyerlein, M., Nemiro, J. and Beyerlein, S. (2008). A framework for working across
boundaries. In Jill Nemiro, Michael Beyerlein, Lori Bradley, and Susan Beyerlein
(Eds.). The Handbook of High Performance Virtual Teams: A toolkit for collaborating
across boundaries. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 31-58.
Brown, M.K., Huettner, B., and James-Tanny, C. (2007). Managing Virtual Teams:
Getting the most from wikis, blogs, and other collaborative tools. Plano, Texas:
Wordware.
Carte, T., Chidanbaram, L., and Becker, A. (2006). Emergent Leadership in Self-
Managed Virtual Teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 323-343.
DeRosa, D., Hantula, D., Kock, N. and D’Arcy, J. (2004). Trust and Leadership in
Virtual Teamwork: A Media Naturalness Perspective. Human Resource Management,
43(2/3), Summer/Fall, 219-232.
Duarte, D. and Snyder, N. (2007). Mastering Virtual Teams: Strategies, Tools, and
Techniques That Succeed. Third edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Virtual-Teams-Strategies-
Techniques/dp/0787982806
June 2009
Do not reproduce 57
Geisler, Barbara (2002). Virtual Teams. Online Paper. Organizational Issues and
Insights, NewFoundations.
http://www.newfoundations.com/OrgTheory/Geisler721.html
Gould, David (2006). Leading Virtual Teams. Online paper, Fifth Generation Work –
Virtual Organization.
http://www.seanet.com/~daveg/vrteams.htm#Introduction
Hambley, L., O’Neill, T. and Kline, T. (2007). Virtual Team Leadership: Perspectives
from the Field. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 3(1), 40-64.
Horwitz, F., Bravington, D. and Silvis, U. (2006). The promise of virtual teams:
Identifying key factors in effectiveness and failure. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 30(6), 472-494.
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue4/jarvenpaa.html
Kimball, Lisa (1997). Managing Virtual Teams. Presentation at the Team Strategies
Conference, Toronto, Canada.
Kirkman, B. and Mathieu, J. (2004). The role of virtuality in work team effectiveness.
Paper presented at the Academy of Management annual meeting, Louisiana, August
6 -- 11, 2004.
Do not reproduce 58
http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/5/700
Lin, C., Standing, C., and Liu, Y. (2008). A model to develop effective virtual teams.
Decision Support Systems, 45(4), 1031-1045.
Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time, and
Organizations with Technology. New York: John Wiley.
Malhotra, A. (2003). Far-flung virtual teams: pitfalls and best practices. Presentation
notes, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.,
pp. 2-3.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M., Rapp, T. and Gilson, L. (2008). Team Effectiveness 1997-
2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse into the Future. Journal of
Management, 34(3), June 1, 2008, 410 - 476.
Melymuka, Kathleen (1997). Tips for Teams. Computerworld, 31(17), April 28, 72.
Mihhailova, Gerda (2007). Virtual Teams: Just a Theoretical Concept or a Widely Used
Practice? The Business Review, Cambridge, 7(1), Summer, 186-192.
Mochal, Tom (2007). 10 tips for managing virtual teams. TechRepublic, Nov. 13.
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=266
June 2009
Do not reproduce 59
Nandhakumar, J. and Baskerville, R. (2006). Durability of online teamworking:
Patterns of trust. Information, Technology and People, 19(4), 371-389.
Nemiro, J., Bradley, L., Beyerlein, M. and Beyerlein, S. (2008) The challenges of
virtual teaming. In Nemiro, J., Beyerlein, M., Bradley, L. and Beyerlein, S. (Eds.) The
Handbook of High-Performance Virtual Teams: a toolkit for collaborating across
boundaries. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1-25.
Powell, A., Piccoli., G. and Ives, B. (2004). Virtual Teams: A Review of Current
Literature and Directions for Future Research. Database for Advances in Information
Systems, 35(1), Winter, 6-36.
http://www.amazon.com/No-More-Teams-Mastering-
Collaboration/dp/0385476035
Staples, D.S. and Webster, J. (2007). Exploring Traditional and Virtual Team
Members’ “Best Practices”: A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective. Small Group
Research, 38(1), Feb., 60-97.
Wilson, Shauna (2003). Forming Virtual Teams. Quality Progress, 36(6), June, 36-41.
June 2009
Do not reproduce 60