The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm
TPM
14,1/2
Virtual teams: a leader’s guide
Phillip L. Hunsaker and Johanna S. Hunsaker
School of Business Administration, University of San Diego, San Diego,
California, USA
86
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to provide guidelines to help leaders understand and lead
virtual teams.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper discusses the importance and implementation of
effective leadership for virtual teams. It begins with a review of conventional versus virtual teams, and
then describes the two primary leadership functions in virtual teams – performance management and
team development. Following the discussion of the development and function of new teams, the article
then provides a detailed guide for the leadership of virtual teams over the life of a project. These
guidelines follow the four stages of a project timeline: Pre-Project, Project Initiation, Midstream, and
Wrap-Up.
Practical implications – Following guidelines and understanding the differences between
conventional and virtual leadership will enable managers to become effective virtual team leaders.
Originality/value – The paper shows how, in the context of increasing globalization and
technology, leaders can manage the challenges of leading virtual teams.
Keywords Teambuilding, Leadership, Communication, Performance management
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
In recent years, activities in all types of organizations have become increasingly more
global, competition from both foreign and domestic sources has grown dramatically,
and there has been a continued shift from production to service/knowledge-based work
environments (Townsend et al., 1998). Advances in information and communication
technology have enabled a faster pace of change than in the past and have created jobs
that are increasingly more complex and dynamic.
Publication note: “Virtual teams: a leader’s guide”, by Phillip Hunsaker and Johanna Hunsaker,
Team Performance Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, 2008, pp. 86-101.Since the publication of the
above article by Dr Phillip L. Hunsaker and Dr Johanna S. Hunsaker it has been found that the
paper copies sections of content verbatim from the following papers:
Team Performance Management
Vol. 14 No. 1/2, 2008
pp. 86-101
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7592
DOI 10.1108/13527590810860221
.
Bell, B.S. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2002), “A typology of virtual teams: implications for
effective leadership” Group and Organization Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 14-49.
.
Beranek, P., Broder, J., Reinig, B.A., Romano, N.C. Jr and Sump, S. (2005), “Management of
virtual project teams: guidelines for team leaders”, Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 16, pp. 247-59. This paper is available online at:
http://cais.aisnet.org/articles/16-10/default.asp?View=pdf&x=44&y=9
.
Ross, J., “Trust makes the team go ‘round’”, Harvard Management Update, June 2006, pp.
3-6.
Emerald apologises sincerely to the original authors for its error in publishing this paper in
Team Performance Management.
In response to these changes, organizational systems, structures, and processes
have evolved to become more flexible and adaptive. Horizontal organizational
structures and team-based work units have become more prevalent, and with advances
in internet technology there is an increasing emphasis on geographically distributed
“virtual” teams as organizing units of work. Virtual teams are groups of
geographically and/or organizationally dispersed co-workers that are assembled
using a combination of telecommunications and information technologies to
accomplish an organizational task (Malhotra et al., 2007).
To some individuals, working alone at home is a terrific option. They like the idea of
sitting at their computer terminals in comfy clothes, the dog at their feet. The worker
has no need for an office or a parking space. Air pollution and traffic congestion are
reduced. Others find the idea a little lonely and somehow disconcerting. They worry
that they will miss interaction with their colleagues, and they worry about the pitfalls
of the virtual teams: lack of individual recognition, celebrations of team
accomplishments, lack of project visibility, the constraints of technology and lack of
trust (Gould, 1997).
Despite some of the potential pitfalls for virtual teams, the research data reveal that
the benefits of virtual team phenomenon ultimately outweigh the pitfalls (Robertson,
2006). Neal (2005) administered a web-based survey to 35 teams ranging in size from 2
to 28 members, representing employees in the USA and in Europe. The most diverse
team had eight members in seven different locations. The findings of that study found
that the distribution of team members does not have an observable effect on
performance, and that virtual teams and traditional teams have the same levels of task
and relationship conflict. Handy (1995) researched over 100 individuals who had
participated in virtual teams of all types of work. His data found the following
concerning the virtual team phenomenon: virtual teams get the job done; people can be
trusted; and virtual teams take on the same basic structure as “real” teams.
A recent study of Oracle Corporation and a group of experienced executive
leaders focused on the characteristics that executive leaders working within a
complex environment deemed as important to being an effective leader (Hanson,
2007). One of the main challenges that emerged from the study was “providing clear
direction and being able to effectively connect with virtual team members
distributed across time zones” (p. 74). The success of Oracle is due in part to the
success of its virtual teams. One study participant commented, “Our organization
has faced rapid growth within the last two years . . . most of this growth has also
happened in different geography, it has been important to enable teams to make
their own decisions . . . I have had to make myself available at hours that work for
the remote location to be the sounding board for decisions . . . I am, for the most
part, satisfied with the process and the outcome. We have been able to deliver key
products and have added key functional dimensions to the product’s capabilities.
Given a clear business advantage, a complex environment can be made to work if
one is determined and flexible” (p. 71).
Additionally, virtual teams allow organizations to access the most qualified
individuals for a particular job regardless of their location, enable organizations to
respond faster to increased competition, and provide greater flexibility to individuals
working from home or on the road. Conversely, a company may not look for the most
qualified individual; rather it takes advantage of high degrees of expertise while
paying less than the prevailing wage. Some find this business practice negative if cost
savings is the only reason for the implementation of the virtual team (Robertson, 2006).
Virtual teams
87
TPM
14,1/2
88
Research findings from a study conducted by Ceridian Employer Services reveal that
the ability to work in virtual teams has started to play a big role in the recruitment and
retention of employees (DeLisser, 1999). A total of 50 percent of employees of large and
small companies considered the ability to work in virtual teams a very attractive
incentive to join a company.
Virtual teams offer high flexibility and other potential benefits, but they also create
numerous leadership challenges. In order to get a better idea of how to deal with virtual
teams, we first need to distinguish the difference between virtual teams and
conventional teams. The challenges of virtual teams will be discussed in the
subsequent section.
Conventional teams and virtual teams
Virtual teams possess characteristics that distinguish them from conventional,
face-to-face teams (Bell and Kozlowski, 2002). Members of virtual teams are not
physically proximal. However, the tasks, goals, or missions they are designed to
accomplish are not necessarily different from those of conventional teams. It is the way
they go about accomplishing those tasks, and the unique constraints they face, that are
different. There are two main distinguishing characteristics between virtual teams and
conventional teams, namely: spatial distance; and information, data, and personal
communication (see Table I).
Spatial distance
The most important feature of virtual teams is that they cross boundaries of space. While
the members of traditional teams work in close proximity to one another, the members of
virtual teams are separated, often by many miles or continents (Pape, 1997; Townsend
et al., 1996). The members of virtual teams rarely interact in traditional face-to-face
fashion and instead use a number of mediating technologies, such as video-conferencing
and e-mail, to maintain internal links and carry out their work. Although many
traditional, localized teams also communicate through computerized communication
media, such technology is typically used to supplement face-to-face communication. It is
the absence of this proximal, face-to-face interaction between members of virtual teams
that makes them virtual and distinguishes them from more traditional teams. This
absence has the potential for great difficulty. Even when employees have good language
skills, they naturally interpret written and verbal communication through the filter of
their own culture (Snyder, 2003). For instance, John Alexander, Director of Human
Resources for Check Point Software Technologies states:
People in Tel Aviv asked me why their US counterparts would sometimes seem upset by
email exchanges . . . Israelis, who tend to be rather blunt and direct, were sending e-mails that
seemed a bit rude to their American counterparts. And Americans were sending e-mails that
were viewed as ‘wishy-washy,’ by framing requests with phrases such as ‘Thanks in advance
for sending me . . . ’ (p. 18).
Table I.
Differences between
virtual and conventional
teams
Spatial distance
Communication
Virtual teams
Conventional teams
Distributed
Technologically mediated
Proximal
Face-to-face
Clearly, this illustrates cultural communication differences that might lead to
confusion and misunderstanding.
Virtual teams allow organizations to become more flexible, adaptive, and
responsive by enabling them to cross boundaries of space, but the issues of cultural
context need to be recognized. Virtual teams can be designed to include the people most
suited for a particular project because there is no longer a need to worry about
traditional concerns of whether members are located in reasonable proximity to one
another or what it will cost to achieve that proximity (Townsend et al., 1996).
Furthermore, virtual teams allow organizations to respond faster to increased
competition because they can quickly harness the knowledge employees possess,
regardless of location. Although these features of virtual teams may not be extremely
advantageous or even necessary when dealing with less complex tasks, they become
increasingly more critical as the task a team performs becomes more complex.
Complex tasks often require multiple individuals, each with an area of expertise, to
coordinate their actions, and often this expertise is located outside of an organization.
Virtual teams allow organizations to access this expertise. It is important to know
that these benefits associated with dispersed work groups are not guaranteed. The
ability of a virtual team to operate effectively depends on the match between the task
demands and the communication technology used by the team. For example, if a task is
complex and requires a great deal of information exchange and group decision making,
e-mail will not provide an effective means of communication between team members
and a process loss will result. However, if the communication technology used by the
team meets the demands of the task, a dispersed work group can offer many
advantages over a team whose members are collocated.
Not all benefits or downsides of virtual teams can be quantified. By and large,
making them work is a case of finding virtue in necessity. Virtual teams that are
focused on noticing conflict may actually have an advantage over traditional teams in
managing conflict. Team members, whether virtual or not, need to pay attention to
how the team functions, and members of virtual teams need to be especially vigilant
(Neale et al., 2003). Problems resulting from miscommunications that may be easily
corrected through face-to-face interaction can take on a life of their own in the virtual
environment. Over-communication among team members may be the key to success
when team members are physically, temporally and culturally separate. Neal stresses,
“Given appropriate resources, by being aware of their situation, they can construct
their environments to avoid process conflict, and perhaps find ways to outperform
their collocated counterparts” (Neale et al., 2003, p. 201).
Information, data, and personal communication
The ability of virtual teams to be distributed across space is relevant to the second
differentiating feature of virtual teams – technological mediation. In recent years, a
number of advanced communication technologies have been introduced into the
business world. Although e-mail is probably the most common, other more complex
and interactive communication technologies, such as videoconferencing, groupware,
and project management software, are growing in popularity (Geber, 1995). These
allow individuals, along with phone and fax machines, to communicate and share
information and data regardless of their location in time and space, and are the primary
means by which the members of virtual teams interact.
While most virtual team members have a positive experience working across space
and time, the biggest area of complaint involved communication problems (Grenier and
Virtual teams
89
TPM
14,1/2
90
Metes, 1995). These problems fell into several categories: lack of project visibility,
difficulty in contact, and technology constraints. In terms of general awareness, it was
difficult to have an overall picture of the project. Team members knew what they were
doing on an individual basis, but they were not always sure where their pieces fit into the
whole. There were also problems getting a hold of people. One team member in the study
said, “It’s frustrating not being able to get a response from people as soon as you like.
Weeks can slip by and we are all doing other jobs. You send out a question and in some
cases an answer never comes back” (p. 106). Constraints from the technology itself were
also viewed as a problem. “It’s sometimes difficult to derive the meaning from text based
messages, especially if the person is attempting to be sarcastic or facetious” (p. 107).
In traditional teams, such complex linking technologies are often not necessary (or
are supplemental) because team members communicate primarily through face-to-face
contact. However, because virtual team members are distributed across space,
communication technologies provide the means to link members together and are
critical. Although the specific communication technology a virtual team employs
depends to some extent on an organization’s resources, the choice should be dictated by
the nature of the task the team is performing.
Challenges of virtual teams
Virtual teams face particular challenges involving trust, communication, deadlines,
and team cohesiveness (Jarvenpaa, 1998; Kitchen and McDougall, 1999; Lipnack and
Stamps, 2000; Robey et al., 2000; Warkentin et al., 1999). Cascio (2000) asserts that there
are five main disadvantages to a virtual team: lack of physical interaction, loss of
face-to-face synergies, lack of trust, greater concern with predictability and reliability,
and lack of social interaction. In building a virtual team, all of these issues must be at
least implicitly addressed in order to have an effective virtual team.
Virtual teams are challenged because they are virtual; they exist through computer
mediated communication technology rather than face-to-face interactions. Oftentimes
they report to different supervisors (Cohen and Mankin, l999), and they function as
empowered professionals who are expected to use their initiative and resources to
contribute to accomplishment of the team goal (Lipnack and Stamps, 2000).
Furthermore, they are expected to become interdependent, successfully negotiate
cultural differences, and accomplish their tasks through computer-mediated
technology. Lipnack and Stamps (2000) assert that:
. . . one of the reasons virtual teams fail is because they overlook the implications of the
obvious differences in their working environments. People do not make accommodations for
how different it really is when they and their colleagues no longer work face-to-face. Teams
fail when they do not adjust to this new reality by closing the virtual gap (p. 19).
Next, trust in virtual teams is a large issue (Jarvenpaa, 1998; Lipnack and Stamps,
2000; Robey et al., 2000). While the issue of trust is not insurmountable, the ability to
develop trust is a major factor of team success. The swift trust theory (Meyerson et al.,
1990, as cited by Jarvenpaa, 1998) has been used to examine trust in virtual teams.
Jarveenpaa notes several factors that may negatively influence trust in global virtual
teams. These include time, distance, culturally diverse and globally spanning
members, and the reliance on computer mediated technology. While researchers who
examined trust in virtual teams did indeed conclude that trust can be established, they
caution that the initial impressions of trust among team members is critical, and it is
often difficult to establish trust in later stages of team development (Jarvenpaa, 1998;
Lipnack and Stamps, 2000; Robey et al., 2000; Warkentin et al., 1999).
Lastly, communication is a challenge in virtual teams. The issues include the lack of
non-verbal cues, the inability to take advantage of incidental meetings and learning
(informal discussion in the mail room), difficulty engaging in spontaneous written
communication, and insufficient attention to socio-emotional issues (Hron et al., 2000;
Jarveenpaa, l998; Lipnack and Stamps, 2000; Warkentin et al., 1999). People rely on
multiple modes of communication when conversing face-to-face, such as tone of voice,
inflection, volume, eye movement, facial expressions, hand gestures and other body
language (Warkentin et al., 1999). These cues serve to facilitate turn-taking, convey
subtle meanings, provide feedback, and regulate the flow of conversation. Computer
technology precludes the normal give-and-take of discussion. Virtual team members
may fail in their attention to the emotional aspects of the environment, which may
prove difficult to resolve in a virtual environment (Jarvenpaa, 1998). In order to
overcome some of these communication issues, researchers have suggested a number
of tools, prompts, or rules to guide the discussion (Chung, 1999; Lipnack and Stamps,
2000). Others have recommended that teams meet face-to-face when possible (Lipnack
and Stamps, 2000; Robey et al., 2000).
Despite these drawbacks, the benefits of virtual teams prevail. Virtual teams are
increasingly part of our everyday reality, and employees will most likely be members
of a virtual team at some point in their professional career. To ensure the best outcomes
for the functioning of these virtual teams, strong leadership is absolutely necessary.
The leadership function in virtual teams
There are the two primary leadership functions in virtual teams: performance
management and team development (Bell and Kozlowski, 2002). The ability of leaders
to monitor team member performance and to implement solutions to work problems is
severely restricted by the lack of face-to-face contact within these teams. It is also
difficult for virtual team leaders to perform mentoring, coaching, and developmental
functions. How do leaders of virtual teams monitor team member performance and
progress toward task accomplishment? How do the leaders of virtual teams develop
and mentor team members?
The challenge for virtual teams is that these functions must be accomplished by
leadership substitutes and by distributing the functions to the team itself. For example,
the members of virtual teams are usually chosen for their expertise and competence
and often for their prior virtual team experience. They are expected to have the
technical knowledge, skills, abilities, and other attributes to be able to contribute to
team effectiveness and to operate effectively in a virtual environment. Thus, the need
for virtual team leaders to monitor or develop team members may not be as crucial. In
addition, it is important for virtual team leaders to distribute aspects of these functions
to the team itself, in effect, making it more of a self-managing team (Manz and Sims,
1987). Leaders will need to implement a system in which team members will be able to
regulate their own performance as a team (Kozlowski et al., 1996).
To accomplish this, virtual team leaders need to provide a clear, engaging direction
(Hackman and Walton, 1986) along with specific individual goals. Clear direction and
goals enhance individual self-regulation and enable team members to monitor their
own performance, gather their own feedback, and evaluate their own performance
(Kozlowski, 1998; Smith et al., 1997). Although this is relevant in all teams, virtual team
leaders need to be more proactive and structuring. Virtual team leaders need to develop
Virtual teams
91
TPM
14,1/2
92
mechanisms and processes that become reinforced by the team members themselves to
regulate team performance patterns (Zaccaro and Burke, 1998).
One way virtual team leaders can do this is by developing appropriate habitual
routines early on in the team’s lifecycle (Gersick and Hackman, 1990). Habitual routines
operate automatically and perpetuate existing patterns of behavior, unless some
extraordinary event occurs. Leaders can develop habitual routines by pre-specifying
standard operating procedures, training members in the desired routines, and
providing motivational incentives sufficient to ensure compliance with them (Gersick
and Hackman, 1990). Team member self-regulation can also be enhanced by leaders
who set explicit objectives, create a clear mission, and develop an appropriate climate
or tone (Kozlowski et al., 1996). Leaders can also set forth rules and guidelines that
specify appropriate team member behavior. For example, computer-mediated
communication tends to lead to more uninhibited individual behavior, such as
strong and inflammatory expressions (Siegel et al., 1986; Straus and McGrath, 1994;
Weisband, 1992). Therefore, virtual team leaders may need to develop standard
operating procedures that specify appropriate and inappropriate computer mediated
communication.
Virtual team leaders also need to closely monitor any changes in environmental
conditions. Because virtual team members are distributed, they are less aware of the
broader situation and the dynamics of the overall team environment. So, as external
conditions change, such as modified task specifications, a new deadline, or changes in
the team’s goals, leaders need to facilitate adaptive and appropriate changes within
their team. And finally, virtual team leaders need to motivate team members to commit
strongly to the overall team effort and need to facilitate team coherence, especially
under high intensity conditions (Hackman and Walton, 1986; Kozlowski et al., 1996;
Kozlowski et al., 1996; McGrath, 1962; Zaccaro and Burke, 1998). Team coherence,
which is characterized by seamless group processes, is facilitated by developing linked
individual goals, creating a repertoire of team task strategies, and building a
compatible network of role expectations across team members (Kozlowski et al., 1996).
Developing new virtual teams
The ability of virtual team leaders to perform key leadership functions is limited by the
distribution of team members across space and the consequent lack of face-to-face
contact. These difficulties are compounded with putting together a brand new team
versus leading an established team. In both cases effective virtual team leaders are
expected to be more likely than leaders of traditional teams to create structures and
routines to substitute for the functions, and to distribute the leadership functions to the
team. They are also more likely to create self-managing teams by providing direction
and specific goals, monitoring environmental conditions, updating/revising goals and
strategies as environmental contingencies warrant, and facilitating collaboration and
cohesion among team members.
With respect to new team development, leaders may be faced with the prospect of
building a brand-new team or integrating new members into an established team. At
formation, new teams are merely a collection of individuals. The leader’s functional
role is to develop these individuals into a coherent and well-integrated work unit
(Kozlowski et al., 1996). In other instances, on-going teams experience personnel
outflows and inflows over time. As new replacement personnel are brought into the
team, they need to be socialized and assimilated (Moreland and Levine, 1989). Leaders
are critical to this newcomer assimilation process (Ostroff and Kozlowski, 1992).
The success of a project or mission is often related to team members’ effectiveness
in relating to one another which, in turn, is influenced by team cohesion and norms. For
virtual teams, norms and cohesion are not automatically present. Team leaders need to
not only select members with necessary skills and, but they also need to make sure the
project is clearly defined, outcome priorities are established, and that a supportive team
climate and cooperative relationships are established.
Virtual teams
93
The developmental function
The developmental functions of team leaders focus on the enactment of “team
orientation” and coaching to establish “team coherence” (Kozlowski et al., 1996). Team
orientation includes factors with motivational implications, such as promoting shared
goal commitment, creating positive affect, and shaping climate perceptions. Team
orientation represents the affective bonds that connect members to the team and its
mission. Team coherence includes the development of linked individual goals, a
repertoire of team task strategies, and a compatible network of role expectations across
team members. Team coherence represents team members’ collective bond to task
interdependencies and dynamics and provides the capability for teams to self-manage
(Kozlowski et al., 1996; Kozlowski et al., 1999).
Building trust
One critical element of a team building is developing trust, and it is up to the leader to
create the atmosphere of trust. Handy (1995) addresses this issue quite clearly:
If we are to enjoy the efficiencies and other benefits of the virtual organization, we will have to
rediscover how to run organizations based more on trust than on control. Virtuality requires
trust to make it work. Technology on its own is not enough.
The issue of trust is at the center of team building, and must be taken into account
when first forming teams.
Five things a leader should do to boost trust in dispersed operations using virtual
teams are:
(1) Create face time. This can include physical face time, or if face-to-face is not
possible, digital “yearbook” featuring pictures of the team members and their
interests. This will help people get an idea of who they will be dealing with.
(2) Set goals and expectations. Explain plans and expectations. Set up mutually
agreeable schedules and check points to keep team members on task.
(3) Provide ongoing feedback. Feedback is essential for both individuals and the
team as a whole to know how they are doing and make necessary changes.
(4) Show-case team members’ competence. Define clear roles and share with all
team members. Highlight individual areas of expertise for the rest of the team.
(5) Foster cultural understandings. This is often one of the biggest challenges in
global work teams. When different cultural issues are not dealt with openly,
team members may feel dismissed and distrust can develop. Language barriers
are often the issue but companies have found that communication through
online chat sessions can make it easier for someone that is not comfortable
speaking in a specific foreign language.
TPM
14,1/2
94
Figure 1.
Guidelines for managing
virtual teams over the life
of a project
Leading virtual teams over the life of a project
Guidelines to assist project leaders when managing virtual teams over the life of a
project follow the four stages of the project timeline illustrated in Figure 1: Pre-Project,
Project Initiation, Mid Stream and Wrap-up (Beranek et al., 2005).
Pre-Project
Although some long-standing norms exist in establishing the project mission, funding,
and priorities, in virtual project teams initial project planning is somewhat altered by
the degree of virtuality and the experience of the team. Virtual team leaders should
support and motivate individual team members actively to ensure their participation
during the critical pre-project stage. Following are some of the things team leaders
need to do at this stage.
Select appropriate team members. The selection of team members and definition of
their roles should be an iterative process. Virtual team leaders often are given a broader
selection from which to choose team participants than do traditional team leaders.
Virtual team leaders must actively manage the combination of team member
knowledge, background and work process familiarity to ensure project success.
Acquire methodological and domain expertise. In virtual teams leaders can access more
people to be team members and are provided with a larger opportunity to choose
members whose skills more closely match the requirements of the project at hand.
Expertise is divided into domain expertise and methodological expertise. Domain
expertise is knowledge in specific areas such as database systems, system analysis and
design, or network security. Methodological expertise is knowledge in areas such a
statistical analysis, development and application of surveys, or software engineering
(Boh et al., 2002).
Leaders need to deploy expertise in project teams so as to meet both the requirements
of projects and clients. It is the utilization of these types of knowledge, rather than the
knowledge itself, that forms the basis of a firm’s competitive advantage.
Seek members with shared mental models work-process familiarity. Work-process
familiarity and shared mental models are related concepts that describe team members’
cognitive aspects of work and task organization. Shared mental models are based on
similar technical knowledge bases while work familiarity refers to shared teamwork
process experiences (Espinosa et al., 2002). While some aspects of work process
familiarity, such as relationships with other team members, may have to be
established, other aspects such as shared knowledge of the project parameters,
possession of required skills, and experience with the client organization can exist
beforehand and can be used as a basis for team selection.
Establish and communicate project mission, priority and success criteria. Team
leaders should establish and document both a clear project mission and a priority-level
commitment with upper-management and the team participants. All team members
should understand what constitutes project success and share the common goal of
achieving that end. The leader needs to make sure that team members not only possess
the requisite skills and experience but also understand each of the specific roles they
are to fulfill to achieve project success. If goal alignment is not formally established
among team members, individuals tend to pursue different priorities and virtual
projects often fail.
Define the team climate. Team leaders should also be concerned about how group
cooperation will be achieved, the amount of acceptable individualism, and the nature of
the support infrastructure that will be available to team members. The greater the
diversity in back-home culture and norms experienced in previous teams, the more
likely it is that members will have concerns and doubts that must be monitored and
addressed in a timely way throughout the project life-cycle. Leader facilitation in this
area is especially necessary for team members new to the virtual team experience.
Virtual project leaders should anticipate different cultural values and norms among
diverse team members and weigh the costs of diversity against its benefits before
choosing team members. Although heterogeneous teams are less compatible and have
more issues than homogeneous teams at early stages of team formation, if team leaders
can help them appreciate and capitalize on their differences, diverse teams are often
more creative and productive in the long run.
Determine technology requirements. Team leaders should identify the special
technological needs of the project and their team members. This includes determining
what technologies will be used to communicate and what training, if any, will be
required for team members. All technological decisions should be made with cognizance
of organizational policies and technologies regarding security (e.g. firewalls and the
ability to communicate outside organizational networks). A minimum set of required
technology for participation should be established and installed for all members as early
as possible. If this step is overlooked, project startup delays are very probable.
Project Initiation
Problems frequently occur when virtual team leaders fail to manage the following
issues adequately at project initiation and throughout the remainder of the project life
cycle. In virtual environments, all issues must be dealt with very deliberately.
Establish virtual team boundaries. It is generally assumed that team members know
who is a member of the team and who is not. This identification is the concept of a team’s
boundaries. Membership in a team and the team’s boundaries can be misunderstood in
both collocated and dispersed teams. In dispersed teams, however, lack of recognition is
more frequent because of the “out of sight, out of mind” phenomenon.
Virtual teams
95
TPM
14,1/2
96
In dispersed teams, increased communication among all team members increases
member salience. One way to increase communication is by designing and encouraging
interdependence of subtasks which in turn increases interactions and increases salience
of membership. Another thing to do is to publicize the expertise and contributions of
each member. Knowledge of unique skills tend to make team members more reliant on
each other in completing project tasks and therefore enhance their understanding of
team boundaries (DeSanctis and Monge, 1999; Mortensen and Hinds, 2002).
Develop shared mental models. As discussed earlier, shared mental models are based
on knowledge similarity within a team. Research in this area argues that shared mental
models are a precondition for well-coordinated team action (Mortensen and Hinds,
2002). Teams that share a mutual understanding of their task and each other are more
coordinated because members understand how their individual work contributes to
team outcomes (Espinosa et al., 2002).
Maintain awareness of team synergy. Synergy awareness is an understanding of
how the activities of others, provide the context for your own activity (Dourish and
Bellotti, 1992). Individual awareness of the contributions of other team members
provides a context in which to interpret activities and anticipate others’ actions which
reduces the effort needed by the leader to coordinate tasks and resources (Gutwin et al.,
1996). There are four types of awareness necessary for team synergy (Weisband, 1992):
(1) Activity awareness is knowledge about the project-related activities of other
team members.
(2) Availability awareness is knowledge of when others are available to meet, or
participate.
(3) Process awareness is a sense of where members’ tasks fit into the stages of the
project, what the sequence of steps is for the project, and what needs to be done
to move on.
(4) Social awareness is knowledge about the members, their social situation and
what they do outside of work.
Awareness deficits can create problems for team synergy and effectiveness (Jang et al.,
2000). Some common awareness deficits are: lack of awareness of what remote team
members are doing on a daily basis; lack of awareness regarding each other’s
availability; no knowledge of colleagues’ key task requirements and deadlines; and
lack of knowledge about how team members felt about an idea or suggestion. To avoid
these deficits, leaders should encourage frequent and early communication among
team members. Then continuous communication is necessary for sharing information
about the activities related to the task and for informing others about the progress of
the work (Rasker et al., 2000; Majchrzak et al., 2004).
In addition, team leaders should initiate task demands and show consideration for
members early on to help set the stage for successful future interactions and performance.
Actively manage communication processes. Team leaders should initiate and
manage a formal structure for the communication process that will guide the ongoing
interactions of the team members. This structure includes establishing clear
conventions to align expectations. For example, team leaders might specify a
specific response time for email, such as twenty-four hours, to ensure that senders do
not feel that they are being ignored by receivers. Team leaders could also ensure that
members are committed to using the agreed upon technology from the pre-project
stage throughout the teams existence.
Specific process structures should be established at both the project and the task
level. At the project level, leaders need to develop an overall strategy and agenda for
the entire project and each task. Internal to each task, local process structures need to
determine such things as managing communication turns, the process for modifying
an agenda and deciding whether tasks will be completed synchronously or
asynchronously. When communication is synchronous, conventions are needed to
guide communication turn-taking so that no one member unduly dominates group
discussion. For asynchronous communication, participants need to respond in a timely
manner to keep communication and progress actively moving forward. Decisions also
need to be made to determine which work elements can be completed separately and
combined later and which tasks need to be worked on collaboratively at the same-time.
Mid Stream
Many of the guidelines introduced at the beginning of the project need to be actively
managed throughout the life of the project. Several of the guidelines from the project
initiation stage (such as team boundaries) need to be maintained, reiterated, or
reinforced on an ongoing basis during the life of the project.
Changes in team membership may occur as individuals and subgroups move in and
out of a virtual team. As a consequence, new guidelines may evolve (such as new shared
mental models) and others can change during a project. To keep team synergy active
over time, one the conventions agreed upon should be that all team members will meet
virtually on an intermittent basis to stay connected and updated. During these virtual
meetings, members should provide visuals such as pictures or videos, to reinforce an
understanding of team boundaries, provide a basis for developing relationships, and
engage in a better understanding of who each member is collaborating with.
Most distributed teams are only partially distributed, that is some of the team
members are collocated and some are remote. These collocated members can form
subgroups that can work independently of the larger team. This reduced visual access
with the larger team can lower team member salience and can cause misunderstandings
of team boundaries if not managed properly. Intermittent reviews of team boundaries,
how boundaries impact inter-member awareness, and shared mental models is important
to keep team members focused and aware of interaction opportunities.
Shared mental models often change as the project progresses. Shared mental models
are more important and play a stronger role when team members or subgroups work
remotely, because the development or use of shared mental models across the project
team may be uneven. Consequently, intermittent review of shared mental models is
also necessary throughout a projects life span.
Wrap-up
As virtual projects end, the geographic and temporal separations can make it easy for
leaders and team members to forgo the important step of project wrap-up or
close-down. This step is an opportunity to discuss what worked and what did not
work. It is useful to evaluate what has been learned about the virtual project process
and methods separately from the specific project content. In the wrap-up the focus
should be solely on the general area of managing the process and methods for virtual
project teams. The goal is to identify lessons learned, identify pitfalls to be avoided and
annotate successes to promote value-added work processes in order to help future
virtual project teams manage themselves better.
Virtual teams
97
TPM
14,1/2
98
Lessons learned
Usually more can be learned from failure than can be learned from successes. Even
though people are more willing to discuss successes, it is just as important to draw out
the mistakes and failures so that they are not likely repeated. Team leaders should
ensure that what went wrong is discussed thoroughly and how those mistakes can be
avoided in the future. It is easy to move through the final stages of a project, glossing
over the less successful aspects of its execution. Team members should each share
what they took away from the experience and offer suggestions for improvement on
future projects.
The wrap-up meeting should be part of the original project timeline and include all
members, even those who phased out of full-time contribution before project
completion. Prior to the last meeting, each participant should be given a final
assignment to come prepared to share their individual experiences and to be
informative to others. It is their last chance to speak their mind. The goal of this
feedback is to bring focus to aspects of the process which were un-examined or worked
around during the urgency to meet deadlines. The stated assignment should cover
domain-specific issues (e.g. technology, budget, timing, etc.), as well as the issues
unique to working in a virtual team environment. Ideally, these findings can be
summarized in a short but succinct working document that will be available to leaders
of future virtual projects.
Recognize successes
The wrap-up should include the review of the quantitative and the qualitative
measures that were initially part of the program. Equally important, and usually easier
to attain, is the collection of project successes. These successes are not necessarily the
stated goals from the project mission, although confirming to project contributors that
they were able to achieve their objectives is satisfying. Instead successes should
include discoveries: methods and results that were at least on a par, and hopefully
better, than the expected. Finally, the collaborative nature of the participants should be
celebrated to give testimony to their ability to overcome any initial apprehensions
towards working on a virtual team. Handy (1995) found in teams he studied that team
accomplishments were seldom celebrated. The leaders rarely, if ever, initiated
celebrations. Some teams met to celebrate at the completion of the project, but for
many, geography and expense made it impossible. Team leaders need to implement
some form of recognition for effective team celebrations.
Develop trust
The issue of trust is at the center of successful virtual team management. The fact is
that the command and control style of management, based on constant scrutiny, is
simply impossible in a virtual environment. University of Southern California’s
Warren Bennis declares, “Whips and chains are no longer an alternative . . . Leaders
must learn now to change the nature of power and how it is employed . . . if they don’t,
technology will . . . Virtual leadership is about keeping everyone focused as old
structures and old hierarchies crumble” (Gould, 1997, p. 26).
Conclusion
This paper was written to guide virtual team leaders in becoming more effective.
Because the world has become increasingly complex, global, and technological, virtual
teams have emerged. We must recognize that virtual teams are all but inescapable in
today’s world, and it is certain that at some point in our careers we will be working as a
member of a virtual team. This modern day reality demands that we adapt and
evaluate traditional ways of working together, and focus on techniques that can lead
the virtual team to success. While we recognize that while there may be pitfalls that
virtual teams have relative to co-located teams, these drawbacks can be addressed by
developing effective virtual team leadership.
References
Bell, B.S. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2002), “A typology of virtual teams: implications for effective
leadership”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, March, pp. 14-49.
Beranek, P.M., Broder, J., Reinig, B.A., Romano, N.C. Jr and Sump, S. (2005), “Management of
virtual project teams: guidelines for team leaders”, Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 16, pp. 247-59.
Boh, W.F., Ren, Y. and Kiesler, S. (2002), “Managing expertise in a distributed environment”,
in Applegate, L., Galliers, R. and DeGross, J.I. (Eds), Proceedings of the International
Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, December 15-18, Association for
Information Systems, Atlanta, GA, pp. 173-81.
Cascio, W.F. (2000), “Managing a virtual workplace”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14
No. 3, August, pp. 81-90.
Chung, S. (1999), “The effects of support tools on student knowledge building in a virtual
university course: summarization, explanation and planning/monitoring”, unpublished
PhD, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
DeLisser, E. (1999), “Update of small business firms: firms with virtual environments appeal to
workers”, Wall Street Journal, October, p. B2.
DeSanctis, G. and Monge, P. (1999), “Introduction to the special issue: Communication processes
for the virtual organization”, Organization Science, Vol. 10 No. 6, November/December,
pp. 693-703.
Dourish, P. and Bellotti, V. (1992), “Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces”,
in Mantei, M. and Baecker, R. (Eds), Proceedings of the Computer Supported Cooperative
Work (CSCW), Toronto, November 1-4, ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 107-14.
Espinosa, J.A., Kraut, R.E., Slaughter, S.A., Lerch, J.F., Herbsleb, J.D. and Mockus, A. (2002),
“Shared mental models, familiarity, and coordination: a multi-method study of distributed
software teams”, in Applegate, L., Galliers, R. and DeGross, J.I. (Eds), Proceedings of the
International Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, December 15-18,
Association for Information Systems, Atlanta, GA, pp. 425-33.
Geber, B. (1995), “Virtual teams”, Training, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 36-40.
Gersick, C.J.G. and Hackman, J.R. (1990), “Habitual routines in task-performing groups”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 47, pp. 65-97.
Gould, D. (1997), “Leading virtual teams”, Boeing Manager Magazine, May, pp. 20-6.
Grenier, R. and Metes, G. (1995), Going Virtual: Moving Your Organization into the 21st Century,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Gutwin, C., Roseman, M. and Greenberg, S. (1996), “A usability study of awareness widgets in a
shared workspace groupware system”, in Ackerman, M.S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’96), Boston, MA, November 16-20,
ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 258-67.
Virtual teams
99
TPM
14,1/2
100
Hackman, J.R. and Walton, R.E. (1986), “Leading groups in organizations”, in Goodman, P.S. (Ed.),
Designing Effective Work Groups, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Handy, C. (1995), “Trust and the virtual organization”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 3,
May/June, pp. 40-50.
Hanson, K.S. (2007), “Emerging elements of leadership in a complex system: a cognitivist
approach”, EdD doctoral dissertation, San Diego State University/University of San Diego,
San Diego, CA.
Hron, A., Hesse, F.W., Cress, U. and Giovis, C. (2000), “Implicit and explicit dialogue structuring
in virtual learning groups”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 53-64.
Jang, C.Y., Steinfeld, C. and Pfaff, B. (2000), “Supporting awareness among virtual teams in a
web-based collaborative system: the teamSCOPE system”, ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin,
No. 21, December 3, ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 28-34.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. (1998), “Communication and trust in global virtual teams”, Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 165-98.
Kitchen, D. and McDougall, D. (1999), “Collaborative learning on the internet”, Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 245-58.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1998), “Training and developing adaptive teams: theory, principles, and
research”, in Cannon-Bowers, J.A. and Salas, E. (Eds), Decision Making under Stress:
Implications for Training and Simulation, APA Books, Washington, DC, pp. 115-53.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., Gully, S.M., Nason, E.R. and Smith, E.M. (1999), “Developing adaptive teams:
a theory of compilation and performance across levels and time”, in Ilgen, D.R. and
Pulakos, E.D. (Eds), The Changing Nature of Work and Performance: Implications for
Staffing, Personnel Actions, and Development, SIOP Frontiers Series, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., Gully, S.M., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (1996), “Team leadership and
development: theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams”,
in Beyerlein, M., Johnson, D. and Beyerlein, S. (Eds), Advances in Interdisciplinary
Studies of Work Teams: Team Leadership, Vol. 3, JAI, Greenwich, CT, pp. 251-89.
Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J. (2000), Virtual Teams: People Working across Boundaries with
Technology, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
McGrath, J.E. (1962), Leadership Behavior: Some Requirements for Leadership Training, US Civil
Service Commission, Washington, DC.
Majchrzak, A., Malhotra, A., Stamps, J. and Lipnack, J. (2004), “Can absence make a team grow
stronger”, Harvard Business Review, May, pp. 137-44.
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A. and Rosen, B. (2007), “Leading virtual teams”, Academy of
Management Perspective, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 60-70.
Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1987), “Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership
of self-managing work teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 106-28.
Moreland, R.L. and Levine, J.M. (1989), “Newcomers and oldtimers in groups”, in Paulus, P. (Ed.),
Psychology of Group Influence, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 143-86.
Mortensen, M. and Hinds, P. (2002), “Fuzzy teams: boundary disagreement in distributed and
collocated teams”, in Hinds, P. and Kiesler, S. (Eds), Distributed Teams, MIT Press,
Cambridge MA, pp. 283-308.
Neale, M., Griffith, L. and Manniv, E. (2003), “Conflict in virtual teams”, in Gibson, C. and
Cohen, S. (Eds), Virtual Teams that Work, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 221-54.
Ostroff, C. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1992), “Organizational socialization as a learning process:
the role of information acquisition”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 849-74.
Pape, W.R. (1997), “Group insurance: virtual teams can quickly gather the knowledge of even
far-flung staff”, Inc., Vol. 19 No. 9, pp. 29-31.
Rasker, P.C., Post, W.M. and Schraage, J.M. (2000), “Effects of two types of intra-team feedback
on developing mental models in command and control teams”, Ergonomics, Vol. 43 No. 8,
pp. 1,167-89.
Robertson, C. (2006), “Offshore software development: the benefits and pitfalls of virtual teams”,
available at: www.ideamarketers.com/?Offshore_Software_Development_The_Benefits_
and_Pitfalls _of_Virtual_Teams&articleid ¼ 229973&from ¼ PROFILE
Robey, D., Koo, H.M. and Powers, C. (2000), “Situational learning in cross-functional virtual
teams”, Technical Communication, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 51-66.
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S. and McGuire, T.W. (1986), “Group processes in computer
mediated communication”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 37, pp. 157-87.
Smith, E.M., Ford, J.K. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1997), “Building adaptive expertise: implications
for training design”, in Quinones, M.A. and Ehrenstein, A. (Eds), Training for a Rapidly
Changing Workplace: Applications of Psychological Research, APA Books, Washington,
DC, pp. 89-118.
Snyder, B. (2003), “Teams that span time zones face new work rules”, Stanford Business
Magazine, May, pp. 3-15.
Straus, S.G. and McGrath, J.E. (1994), “Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and
technology on group performance and member reactions”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 79, pp. 87-97.
Townsend, A.M., DeMarie, S.M. and Hendrickson, A.R. (1996), “Are you ready for virtual
teams?”, HR Magazine, Vol. 41, pp. 122-6.
Townsend, A.M., DeMarie, S.M. and Hendrickson, A.R. (1998), “Virtual teams: technology and
the workplace of the future”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 17-29.
Warkentin, M., Sayeed, L. and Hightower, R. (1999), “Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams”,
in Kendall, K.E. (Ed.), Emerging Information Technologies Improving Decisions,
Cooperation, and Infrastructure, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 241-62.
Weisband, S.P. (1992), “Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and
face-to-face decision making groups”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 53, pp. 352-80.
Zaccaro, S.J. and Burke, C.S. (1998), “Team versus crew leadership: differences and similarities”,
in R.J. Klimoski (Chair), “When is a work team a crew – and does it matter?”, paper
presented at the 13th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Dallas, TX.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Virtual teams
101