Barriers to teaming: An Iranian case study for virtual training in universities
Mohammad Reza Ahanchian
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Azadi Sq. Iran
ahanchi8@um.ac.ir
Abstract
Accompanying advancements in ICT, organizational studies on both theoretical and practical levels have
shown a tendency toward virtual teaming. Organizations world-wide have been moving more and more to
virtual teaming (VT). This paper has proposed that VT may be applied for training and universities are
organizations with high probability of teaming for learning. Referring to several experimental studies, the
paper suggests that VT can create a good opportunity to achieve typical training program objectives in
organizations, that is-I propose- if different variables do not create unwanted barriers. Accordingly, it is
reported the results of a study conducted at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (FUM). The collection of the
data was carried out through the use of a researcher-constructed questionnaire with two intended samples
of 23 non-academic staff (trainee) and their 14 immediate supervisors. The most important findings showed
a significant positive correlation between trainees and their supervisors' viewpoints about four categories of
indicators which make barrier for teaming in the training program. Furthermore among these indicators the
administrative one could take the highest mean of scores for both samples.
Keywords: Teaming, training, virtual team, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (FUM).
Introduction
Organizations world-wide have been moving more and more to team based structures (Townsend et al.,
1996) and networking forms (Snow, et al.,1992; Montony-Weiss, et al., 2001; Wilson, et al., 1994). This
movement suggests a demand for a new type of team structure that can be technology because of its
increasing potential for team forming. This demand may be addressed by emerging technologies called ICT.
Accompanying advancements in ICT, organizational research on both theoretical aspects (Nohria, 1994;
Strati, 2000) and organizational plans in practical aspects (Wilkinson & Cox, 2005; Wilson, et al., 1994) have
illuminated a movement toward VT. Indeed, advances in communications technology could facilitate the
development of virtual teams and/or organizations. These recently emerged forms of virtual, network and
modular teams are supposed to be effective when used with a suitable approach, well-equipped
environment, appropriate training method, and complex system. In addition, this design should be
supported by attention to cultural matters at all four levels: organizational, regional, national, and global as
it is classified in many sources (e.g. Dimmock & Walker, 2005).
It is defined VT as an innovative, collaborative form of teaming relying on ICT-based interactions. All types of
teaming are about team members’ willingness to join with and work with others as a team. Each team needs
to articulate a mission or goal to be achieved (Cohen et al., 1997), which may be a subject to learn, an
organizational matter, or job-dependent issue. Accordingly, VT's goal may be determined as a training one.
Universities, because of their complex professional foundation, may be considered as organizations in which
employees will find their job-related matters good for sharing and hence learning. For that reason I assume
that universities offer a more feasible environment for the development of virtual training teams than do
1
other non-business organizations.
It is supposed that training in a VT format at universities will be appreciated by staff. Replacing face-to-face
training with virtual training may change the previous concepts and implications of team-based learning.
Recent evidence has also demonstrated that VT can create a good opportunity to achieve typical training
program objectives in organizations (Brosnan & Burgess 2003; Oliver 1998; Shah Alam et al., 2007). I propose
that this will be achieved in universities if variables that originate from the structure of training program; the
content of the program; the quality of administration the program; and other organizational variables, can
be distinguished and controlled by related authorities in order to prevent the emergence of unintended
resistance against teaming. These are categorized as four groups' barriers (structural, content-based,
administrative, and organizational) which prevent teaming in virtual training programs at universities. This
paper reports the results of a research study conducted at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (FUM) to find
and analyze such barriers, to form a VT whose first goal is training.
Theoretical framework
Technology advancement highly drives organizations to use telework as shown in an AT & T survey (2003).
The inquiry found that about 80% of companies worldwide expect to have employees who telework in the
next two years, an increase of 54% (Shayo, et al., 2007). Result of research by Bal and Gundry (1999)
revealed that the companies indicated a strong desire (81 per cent) to use virtual teaming as well.
Given the advancements in ICT, many authors (Fong, 2005; Lowery et al., 2006; Staples, et al., 2007; Zhang,
2007) think that VT may be a response to an increasing demand for a new type of teaming in organizations.
In order to study how a virtual team may be shaped, I may categorize the authors' ideas in two main
campaigns: ones who prioritize the technical aspect of virtual teaming and others who realize that the
social/organizational aspect may be more important than technical one. In the other words, some
researchers realize VT as the outcome of ICT development (e.g. Kirkman et al., 2004; Nakayama et al. 2005;
Zakaria et al. 2004) while others suggest that forming a team like VT should not just be assumed as a result
of rational-technical advancements. For example one researcher contends that: "Technology is not the
determining factor for success of VTs. Well motivated and focused teams will rise above the limitations of
the technology available to them" (Fong, 2005, p. 37). Hambley et al. (2007, p. 20), based on their research
findings, note that: "team working in richer communication media did not achieve higher task performance
than those communicating through less rich media." It may be interpreted, however, that there are more
important factors for VT achievement than technology. A literature review helps to support the position that
"technology will not guarantee the success of the VT," as Chinowsky et al. (2003, 102) pointed out. I neither
deny the role of technology nor overestimate its role for teaming.
VT may engage with many types of organizational tasks. Logically it could be categorized with regard to
these tasks. Mittleman and Brigges (1998) identified seven basic types of VT as follows (Shayo, et al., 2007,
p. 199-200):
Networked teams: Individuals who collaborate to achieve a goal or purpose.
Parallel teams: Individuals who carry out special assignment…that the regular organization does not want.
Project or product-development teams: Groups that conduct projects for users or customers for a defined,
but typically extended, period of time.
Work or production teams: Teams that perform regular and ongoing work.
Service teams: Teams create onshore or offshore to provide certain specialized service.
Management teams: Managers brought together either to deliberate and decide on an emergent
organizational problem or operate as specialized steering committees.
Action teams: Individuals collaborating to offer immediate response, often to emergency situations.
A VT whose first task is organizational learning may identify in more than one VT types, for example
networked team, parallel teams, work teams, and management teams.
2
The relationship between teaming and training is clarified well in Jackson's quotation (1995, p. 27): "We are
talking about training because personal development is almost impossible to achieve entirely on one′s own.
It requires direction and support." These can be found in a learning team.
The literature review indicates that training, as a very common operation, has convinced mangers that they
can develop organizational learning programs virtually. According to the 2004 Training Industry Report
(Polezalek, 2004), 89% of surveyed companies reported using the Internet to some extent for delivery of
instruction (Klein, et al., 2006, p. 665). Many experimental studies indicate that training programs which are
based on ICT can reach typical training program objectives in non-academic organizations (e.g., Allan &
Lewis, 2006; Babini, 2004; Bal & Gundry, 1999; Costa, et al., 2006; Gascó, et al., 2004; Klein, et al., 2006;
Orlinkowski, 1996; Quinlan & Hegarty, 2006; Rosen, et al., 2006; Vahtivuori-Hanninen, 2005; Wilkinson &
Cox, 2005) and in educational (higher) institutes (e.g., Galtin-Watts, et al., 2007; Gush, 1999; OlsonBuchanan, 2007; Sitzmann, 2006).
Each higher education institute or university is a learning community, in which the highest levels of
education (Cannon, 1983) is provided. In academia there is much use of the available technologies to
support informal learning opportunities, with an emphasis on promoting networking among professionals
(McDougall, et al. 2005, p. 86).
Non-academic staff plays a critical role in achieving university goals. Hardwick (1994) and Diego et al. (1998)
contend that non-academic staffs carry their own important responsibilities for the smooth functioning of
universities (Parington & Stainton, 2003, p.7). They need to be trained because they must learn how they
respond to renewing demands of internal authorities and external clients (OECD, 1995; Manson, 1996). In
spite of this essential need, as this occurs in the “real world,” training non-academic staff is put on a lower
priority. Parington and Stainton (2003) refer to a finding that indicates “So far the emphasis has been on
academic staff training and development, but it is important to remember that all staff contribute to student
learning opportunities” (Parington & Stainton, 2003, p. 6).
A brief history of training in FUM
FUM is the third oldest major state university in Iran. Encompassing currently 15 faculties, 2000 staff, 650
faculty members, and an official enrollment of 19,000 students, FUM is the biggest State University in the
east of Iran and the second biggest ones in the country. The university offers 180 majors and admits over
3,500 students each year at the Bachelor's, Master's, and Ph.D. levels.
Back in the early 1990s, it revealed a need for training to prepare professional staff for working in an
Intranet environment at the FUM. This training was usually organized internally by professional members
and computer specialists who worked in the Centre for Information, Statistics and Computer (CISC). Relying
on a needs assessment conducted by immediate supervisors, the staff was invited to participate in a training
program. The program was planned and run in CISC and participants had to go to CISC building from in/outcampus faculties and schools. The nearest of out-campus ones were about 120 km (Nishaboor campus) and
the farthest one was about 200 km (Shirvan campus). A high cost was involved in those programs because
administrative regulations required holding courses for each participant, and much travelling and per diem
were needed. For in/out-campus cases, some problems have been created for supervisors whose staffs leave
their work for a few hours or days as well as for staff who had to change their routine arrangements.
Furthermore, participants might find the program ineffective. Ineffectiveness might be due to inefficiency of
the trainer's method; lack of equipment in line with participants' expectations; insufficient time for doing
required practices; and losing sharing experiences and interacting with each other and with the trainer
because participants had to leave the learning environment after completing the program.
With increasing advancements in computer systems as well as development of the Internet, there has been
3
a growing trend to e-learning and Web-based courses as an approach for developing staff professionally in
FUM. When the system for student enrollment (e.g. registrations for conferences and workshops held in the
University; and other services provided for academic and professional staff as well as student--such as using
library services) had been transferred to Intranet-based processes since the early 2000s, the staff inevitably
felt a need to be trained on computer science and network matters. These led the training programs toward
web-based learning or more exactly toward virtual learning.
Method
The 23 participants who responded to the questionnaire were all non-academic staff. They participated in an
eighteen-hour program for basic skills in computer science. The program was delivered online, as a selfdirected e-learning one. The trainees might join together or not as classmates who must learn themes and
do exercises. They were excited to share their learning matters with their colleagues/classmates and
responded to messages sent by trainer. In addition, 14 immediate supervisors whose employees participated
in the program responded to the questionnaire, a researcher-made instrument with 18 closed-ended
statements. The respondents were asked to choose a response from a 4-point Likert scale of: 1) agree
strongly, 2) agree somewhat, 3) disagree somewhat or 4) strongly agree. There was not a reverse scoring
and respondents were not forced to choose a response for each statement. Each statement represented a
barrier for teaming. As it is asserted in the Introduction, the barriers were categorized into four groups:
structural, content-based, administrative, and organizational. They are driven from literature review and
after ascertaining their initial relevance by researcher they found a form of statement and constructed the
questionnaire. The same statements with a little difference on the face were applied to immediate
supervisors. To measure the reliability of the questionnaire it was computed a correlation (Spearman-Brown)
with spilt-half approach (r= .87). Furthermore the face validity of the questionnaire was assessed by the
researcher and his academic colleagues (n=2). Data was analyzed by computing a measure of central
tendency and the non parametric Spearman's rho correlation.
Findings
The study identified 18 indicators of barriers encountered in training via teams. These indicators were
categorized into four groups.
G1. Structural (The structure of training program, for instance the ways trainees may connect together and
interact with their trainer);
G2. Content (The learning content and material, for instance the kind of subject matter and related materials
offered at the program);
G3. Administrative (How the program was run; How the facilities were managed, etc.);
G4.Organizational (The context-based matters that might influence teaming, for instance the training
support system).
Table 1 shows the comparative data of trainees and their supervisors for each statement of structural
indicators.
Table 1 Trainees and supervisors scoring the structural indicators
No
1
2
3
Indicator
Enough time for learning
Opportunity to interact with other trainees
Participating in self/others evaluation
4
Trainees
(n=23)
Frequency Mean
21
3/1
21
2/9
21
3/35
Supervisors
(n=14)
Frequency Mean
9
3
9
2/7
8
3/6
4
The program organization
22
9
2/6
3/1
Relying on Likert-type scale when each respondent answered "strongly agree" (4) it means that in his or her
mind the indicator has played a strong role in shaping a barrier for teaming in the training program.
Conversely, when they answered "Strongly disagree" (1) it means that the indicator has played a trivial role
to create a barrier for teaming, in his or her mind. To compute the mean, for instance, the sum of responses
to first indicator (enough time for learning) is counted based on different values of four-point scale (total=65
for trainees in the Table). Then its division on the respondents (frequency= 21) could show the mean
(65:21=30.09). The mean 31 shows that while the lowest score of the indicator might be 1 and the highest
one 4, the mean is assumed to tend to the highest score.
As illustrated in Table 1, the highest score for trainees is the third indicator and is same for their immediate
supervisors. It means they think the program, in its structural nature, does not invite the trainee to evaluate
him- or herself as much as other trainees. This may be considered as a barrier for teaming while they need to
know the situation of each other during the program. In trainee's view, the structure of the program may
make a barrier for teaming in forth indicator at the least.
Table 2 Trainees and supervisors scoring the content-based indicators
No
5
6
7
Indicator
Individualized learning content
Reliance of the content on personal history
Supportive learning material
Trainees
Frequency Mean
20
3/3
20
2/8
21
2/7
Supervisors
Frequency Mean
10
3/4
11
2/4
10
3/1
As Table 2 shows, interestingly, the trainees and their immediate supervisors have a common viewpoint
about the highest indicator which may create a barrier for team-based training. They seem alert to the
nature of content which is provided with emphasis on individualized qualities. This creates a program whose
goals may be achieved by personal attempt.
Table 3 Trainees and supervisors scoring the administrative indicators
No
Indicator
Trainees
Supervisors
Frequency
Mean
Frequency Mean
8
The length of the program
22
12
3/2
3/4
9
The support of managers
21
12
3/7
3/1
10 The quality of infrastructures
20
12
3/9
3/5
11 Computer facilities
21
13
3/75
3/7
Table 3 indicates that while trainees view infrastructure as a main cause that may delay teaming in a training
program, the most important thing for immediate supervisors is the provision of computer facilities. In the
other side, trainees assess 'the length of the program' and their supervisors 'the support of managers' as
indicators with the least important cause to prevent the teaming.
Table 4 Trainees and supervisors scoring the organizational indicators
No
12
13
14
15
Indicator
Trainees
Frequency
Mean
20
2
19
2/2
19
2/3
Commitment to team learning
Tending toward teaming
Considering team difficulties by
management system
Valuing to team learning
19
5
2/1
Supervisors
Frequency Mean
10
2/35
11
2/5
10
2/45
11
2/2
16
17
18
Organizational facilities for team work
A continues positive orientation toward
organizational learning
Prioritizing face-to-face interaction
18
19
2/5
2/4
11
11
3
2/8
20
2/9
12
2/5
As table 4 shows, the highest score for trainees is their priority toward face-to-face interaction. It means that
trainees consider learning environment an important variable impacting trainee-trainee and trainee-trainer
communication and hence teaming. In the supervisors' viewpoint the highest score is the sixteenth. They
think organizational facilities may have an impact on teaming more than other organizational indicators.
In sum, among the categories, the highest overall mean belongs to the administrative group of indicators.
This is true both for trainees and their immediate supervisors.
To test a proposed correlation between the two sample groups it is analyzed data by the non parametric
Spearman's rho correlation. The overall results showed that scores on each of categories in supervisors'
questionnaire were significantly and positively correlated with scores on each of categories in trainees'
questionnaire. Spearman's rho correlations ranged from 0.31 to 0.44 (P< 0.01 significance level) for the
study overall.
The most significant contribution of these research findings regarding teaming barriers in a virtual training
program in FUM is that it is possible to assist trainees to develop a team-based training by reviewing these
four groups of indicators that have been focused in this study.
Conclusion
The study aimed to detect the supposed indicators in a training program which impact teaming in a course
for non-academic staff of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (FUM). The subject of course was basic skills in
computer science delivered electronically via the FUM Intranet. It is categorized the proposed variables into
four groups of indicators: structural, content-based, administrative, and organizational. The most important
findings showed that there is a significant positive correlation between trainees and their immediate
supervisors' viewpoints about what constitutes a barrier for teaming in the training program. They consider
the most important barriers that prevent teaming in VT the participating in self/others evaluation as
structural, individualized learning content as content-based, computer facilities as administrative, and
organizational facilities for team work as organizational indicator. In the other side, they assessed
opportunity to interact with other trainees as structural, reliance of the content on personal history as
content-based, the length of the program as administrative, and valuing to team learning as organizational
indicator as the least important barriers that prevent teaming in VT. Furthermore, among the four categories
of indicators, the administrative yielded the highest mean of scores for both samples.
References
Allan, B., & Lewis, D. (2006). Virtual learning communities as a vehicle for workforce development: A
case study. Journal of workplace learning, 18(6), 367–383.
Babini, B., & Lewis, D. (2006). Training virtual library network’s staff using the Internet: The experience of the
Latin American and the Caribbean Social Science Virtual Library online course, Library Management,
25(1/2), 72-76.
Bal, J., & Gundry, J. (1999). Virtual teaming in the automotive supply chain, Team Performance Management,
5(6), 174-193.
Brosnan, K., & Burgess, R. C.( 2003). Web based continuing professional development – a learning
architecture approach. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(1), 24-33.
6
Cannon, R. A. (1983). The professional development of Australian University teacher: An act of faith?
Higher Education, 12(1), 12-19.
Chinowsky, P. S., & Rojas, E. M. (2003). Virtual teams: Guide to successful Implementation. Journal of
Management in Engineering 19(3), 98–106.
Cohen, P. R., Levesque, H. J. & Smith, I. (1997). On team formation, date retrieved from
http://reference.kfupm.edu.sa/content/o/n/on_team_formation__314232.pdf .
Costa, C. A., Chalip, L., Green, B. C., & Simes, C. (2006) Reconsidering the role of training in event
volunteers' satisfaction. Sport Management Review 9(2), 165–182.
Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2005). Education leadership: Culture and diversity, London: SAGE.
Fong, M. W. L. (2005). E-collaborations and virtual organizations. Hershey: IRM Press.
Gatlin,W., R., Carson, M., Horton, J., Maxwell, L. & Maltby, N. (2007). A guide to global virtual teaming, Team
Performance Management, 13(1/2), 47-52.
Gascó, J.L., Llopis, J., González, M. R. (2004). Telefonica’s virtual training turnaround: Increasing employability
through e-learning functions, Development and Learning in Organizations, 18(6), 21-22
Gush, J. (1999). The use of computer mediated communication in the industrial placement year. Education +
Training, 41(2), 63–72.
O'Neill, T. A. & Hambley, L. A. (2007). Virtual team leadership: The effects of leadership style and
communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organizational behaviour & Human
Decision Processes, 103(1), 1–20.
Jackson, P. Z., (1995). Improvisation in training: freedom within corporate structures. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 19(4), 25-28.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E. & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on
virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management
Executive 47(2), 175–192.
Klein, H., Noe, R. A., Chongwei, W. (2006). Motivation to learn and course outcomes: The impact of delivery
mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers, Personnel Psychology, 59 (3), 665702.
Lowry, Paul Benjamin, Roberts, Tom L., Romano Jr., Nicholas C., Cheney, Paul D. Hightower, Ross T.
(2006). The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication, Small Group
Research, 37(6), 631-661.
McDougall, A., Clark, T. & Campbell, L. (2005). Taking the E-Train in University Education, In Nicholson, P.,
Thompson, J. B., Ruobonen, M. & Multisilta, J., (2005). e-Training Practices for Professional
Organizations, Boston, Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massy, A. P. & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and
conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1251–
1262.
Nakayama, M. K., Proano, R., Pilla, B. & Silveira, R.A., (2005). The Impact of the Implementation of distance
education systems in a Telecommunications Companies, In Nicholoson, P., Thompson, J. B.,
Roubonen, M. and Multisilta, J.)( 2005). E-Training Practices for Professional Organizations,
Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Nohria, N. (1994). Bureaucracy, technology, and the implosion of control. In The post-bureaucratic
organisation: New perspectives on organisational change (ed. C. Heckscher & A. Donnellon), pp.
108–128. SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Oliver, S. M. (1998). Technology assisted teaching and learning: Design implications for communication
courses on the internet. Journal of Communication Management, 3(1), 26–38.
7
Olson-Buchanan, J. B., Rechner, P. L., Sanchez, R. J. & Schmidtke, J. M. (2007). Utilizing virtual teams
in a management principles course. Education & Training, 49(5), 408–423.
Orlinkowski, W. J. (1996). Evolving with notes: Organizational change around groupware technology, in
Claudio U. Ciborra ( Ed.) Groupware and Teamwork: Invisible aid or technical hindrance? Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons.
Parington, P. & Stainton, C. (1993). Managing staff development, Nottingham: Open University Press.
. Quinlan, N. & Hegarty, N. (2006). Librarians outside the box: Waterford Institute of Technology's librarybased virtual learning environment (VLE) training and development program, New Library World, 107(1/2),
37-47.
Blackburn, R., & Furst, S. B. (2006).Training for Virtual Teams: An Investigation of Current Practices and
Future Needs. Human Resource Management, 45(2), 229–247.
Shah Alam, S., Khatibi, A., Santhapparaj, A. S. & Talha, M. (2007). Development and prospects of
internet banking in Bangladesh. Competitiveness Review: AnInternational Business Journal
incorporating Journal of Global Competitiveness, 17(1/2), 55–66.
Shayo,C., Olfman, L., Iriberri, A. & Igbaria, M., (2007). The Virtual society: Its Driving Forces, Arrangements,
Practices and Implications, In J. Gackenbach, Psychology and Internet, 2nd Ed, San Diego, Elsevier
Academic Press.
Sitzmann, Traci; Kraiger, Kurt; Stewart, David; Wisher, Robert. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of
Web-based and classroom instruction: A meta analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 623-664.
Snow, C. C., Miles, R. E. & Coleman, H. J. (1992). Managing 21st century network organization,
Organizational Dynamics, 20(3), 5-21.
Staples, D. S. & Webster, J. (2007). Exploring Traditional and Virtual Team Members' "Best Practices" A
Social Cognitive Theory Perspective. Small Group Research, 38(1), 60-97.
Strati, A., (2000). Theory and method in organization studies: paradigms and choices, London: SAGE.
Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M. & Hendrickson, A. R. (1996). Are you ready for virtual teams, HR
Magazine, 41(9), 122-126
Vahtivuori-Hanninen, S. (2005). Pedagogical Models in Network-based Education, in Nicholson, P.,
Thompson, J. B., RUobonen, M. & Multisilta, J., (2005). e-Training Practices for Professional
Organizations, Boston, Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Wilkinson, L. M. and Cox, M., (2005). The effects of IT-Based Training on Employees Uptake of New
Technologies in the Work-Place, In Nicholson, P., Thompson, J. B., Ruobonen, M. and Multisilta, J.,
(2005), E-Training Practices for Professional Organizations, Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers
Wilson, J.M., George, J. & Wellins, R.S. (1994). Leadership Trapeze. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publisher.
Zakaria, N., Amelincky, A. & Wilemon, D. (2004). Working Together Apart? Building a KnowledgeSharing Culture for Global Virtual Teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 15–27.
Zhang, D., Lowry, P. B., Zhou, L. & Fu, X. (2007). The Impact of Individualism-Collectivism, Social Presence,
and Group Diversity on Group Decision Making Under Majority Influence systems, Journal of
Management Information, 23(4), 53-80.
8