Introduction
The traditional workplace environment is gradually transforming. As such, a considerable proportion of organizations is employing virtual teams as a general trend in organizational culture. Definitively, a virtual team refers to a group of geographically, physically, and organizationally dispersed workers consolidated across space and time via communication and information technologies. As a general rule of thumb regarding virtual teams, team members are electronically dependent on each other, and as such, have to work together or cohesively to accomplish tasks at hand, (What-When-How, n.d). Certainly, the most fundamental precept of technological advancement that has fostered or contributed to the growth of virtual teams is flexibility. However, this is not to trivialize other aspects or factors that influence virtual teams, their formation, and team member identity. Coupled with technological advancement, flexible job design is among the chief rationale behind the rapid increase in virtual teams across most organizations.
Adding to the discussion by What-When-How are Bell & Kozlowski (2010) who further describe that work teams are composed of two or more individuals who partake in various activities and functions. On this accord, the authors also edify that teams share one or more common goals, perform tasks as per the organization’s requirement, interact socially, and proffer interdependencies in the workflow. Moreover, teams specify and maintain team boundaries and are included in the overall organization’s strategy and culture where their activities are constrained as they interact with other units within the organization. While Bell & Kozlowski provide a broader spectrum and a bigger picture to what a team entails, their sentiments and assertions are fundamental in the realization that virtual teams are in a sense traditional teams only that technology and geography set them apart. To this end, while virtual teams’ mandate is to create a means by which organizations complete their tasks in the contemporary world, they also critically serve as basic building blocks for modern organizations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
As such, the discourse of the paper is aimed at providing a two-prong articulated discussion whereby the trends surrounding virtual teams in modern business milieu will be proffered first then the concepts and theories surrounding the same second.
Trends
Advancement in Technology
It is inherently impossible to discuss virtual teams without a parallel discussion regarding technology, its advancements, and how it disrupts or affects virtual teams. According to Bell & Kozlowski (2010), the recent decades have witnessed both economic and technological progress that has driven a shift from work confined within the boundaries of individual job descriptions to team-based structures. In essence, a vital piece of a technological trend in virtual teams is the advancement in telepresence technology. Though given a technical term, telepresence refers to video conferencing that mimics traditional face-to-face meetings. While companies are quickly adopting this trend, advancement in other supportive technologies such as camera phones and laptops that proffer high-quality definition or resolution is quickly characterizing virtual meetings. Under this trend, a famous piece of technology is the webcam technology that includes platforms such as GoToMeeting, Google Hangouts, and Skype.
Consequently, this technological advancement alongside networking and the internet have popularized remote working among modern organizations, especially those offshoring their operations. As this trend progresses, traditional offices will soon be a concept of the past replaced by virtual teams. Thus, with advancement in technologies such as information technology (IT), virtual teams can now complete their tasks in good time since feedback loops are faster than in co-located teams (traditional teams operating within the same-office environment), (What-When-How, n.d).
The Need for Environmental Conservation
Indeed, by What-When-How’s (n.d) definition, virtual teams are characterized by interconnectivity and interaction through communication and information technologies. In other words, despite having real or physical implications, the functions and mandates of virtual teams are essentially that; virtual or abstract. As such, what this phenomenon implies is that virtual teams and their functionality have zero footprints on global warming or environmental pollution such as carbon emission. To this end, with the increasing worldwide paradigm shift towards the need to reduce the world’s rate of carbon emission, virtual teams are increasingly becoming the next best option for organizations and corporations seeking to adhere to this global mandate as a corporate environmental responsibility.
The salient manner in which virtual teams achieve this is through the flexibility it provides. Elaborately, since all virtual team members need is a computer and an internet connection for conferencing and peer to peer connection, they can, therefore, complete their tasks from the comfort of their homes or small offices nearby. As such, they reduce commuting time and traveling thus reducing their carbon footprints as opposed to going to a traditional office. Thus in the face of the burgeoning climate change and efforts to minimize its effects, virtual teams are increasingly gaining traction and popularity as one of the futuristic solutions towards environmental conservation and rightfully so.
Flexibility
While industries and organizations have for a long time proffered most of the trends including those mentioned above, the need for flexibility trend is purely advanced by employees. In contemporary working environments, employees are increasingly demanding for flexibility not only in their work but also personal lives. Work-life equilibrium has thus become a fundamental axiom in employment, job satisfaction, and retention, especially in a workforce that is dominated by millennials. On this accord, virtual teams have become more of a necessity than an option. They provide workers not only flexible scheduling but also the luxury of working from home even though partially –a precept that has attracted positive attention and popularity, especially for those seeking equilibrium between work and personal life. As a result, employers and managers have joined in this trend in the bid to retain their most valued and performing employees thereby increasing the necessity for virtual teams. Certainly, individuals that have a flexible schedule and work life are more effective and satisfied thereby increasing their productivity.
Globalization
Globalization is relatively not a new concept in business, and its influence is far-reaching on both national and international scale, and virtual teams are not an exception. Definitively, globalization refers to the process in which organizations develop global influence through operating their businesses worldwide. By definition and considering the geographical concept of globalization, one can comprehend the correlation between virtual teams and globalization. Essentially, the certitude that globalization overlooks boundaries in creating a global economy implies that organizations get the opportunity to diversify their talents. Thus, the more businesses become global; the more functional diversity is achieved. Functional diversity descriptively refers to the tendency of individuals with different training, educational, and ethnic backgrounds to work together, (Peters & Karren, 2009). The authors further ascertain that functional diversity and trust are mutually inclusive and thus work in tandem to ensure the effectiveness of a virtual team. To this end, as organizations cross borders in search of new business opportunities, they diversify their teams as they maintain offshore operations.
The Need to Cut down Expenses
Every organization has an inherent need and mandate to cut down its expenses or minimize costs; some even specify this in their corporate strategy. Thus, organizations continually seek avenues to reduce their costs. While others resort to layoffs and cutting off budgets, some resort to virtual teams. Full-time virtual teams have no need for physical offices and the furniture that accompanies them. Therefore, organizations save on not only furnishing and customization of offices but also rent and mortgage. On the other hand, by setting up home offices, employees save on transportation. This realization has subsequently seen most organizations and employees opting for virtual teams even when it is not part of their culture.
Communication and Trust
Communication determines socialization and how individuals socialize determines their trustworthiness. In a team, regardless of whether virtual or co-located, both vertical and horizontal communication, as well as trust, is important in determining the teams’ effectiveness. Since the two trends as they relate to virtual teams are intertwined, the role of trust as it correlates to communication can be ascertained under three models; interaction, additive, and mediation. According to Sarker et al. (2014), while the other models are fundamental, the mediating model best explains how communication and trust interact to influence performance –a tenet that organizations desire and pursue.
For trust to positively interact with communication and proffer positive performance, team members according to Covey have to exhibit the following behaviors; show respect, talk straight, create transparency, exhibit loyalty, right wrongs, get better, deliver results, clarify expectations, confront reality, show accountability, listen before speaking, keep commitments, and extend trust, (Speed of Trust-Franklin Covey, 2010). While some of the elements have to be embodied by team members through action, most of them have to be evidenced through communication. To this end, the saliency of trust and communication in virtual teams cannot be ignored. Thus, through communication and trust, a positive organizational culture as the desired trend is created and maintained.
Trending Concepts and Theories in Virtual Teams
Social Loafing
This is a phenomenon or concept that refers to the tendency of individuals within a group to put in less effort. Thus, as the number of individuals grows, the effect increases proportionately. In analyzing the obligations of team members, this concept goes beyond the simple explanation of laziness to the perception of a fair share of rewards if the team succeeds in achieving its objectives or blame if the team fails. Thus, virtual teams that exhibit or embody fairness are less likely to witness social loafing and instead realize effectiveness and better performance.
Collective Efficacy
According to Saylor (n.d), the concept refers to a team’s perception of its ability to perform optimally. The concept is influenced by some critical aspects including verbal persuasion that motivates the members, watching others, as well as task interdependence. As the author further hypothesizes, when task interdependence is high, collective efficacy increases. Thus, workflow interdependency in virtual teams substantially hinges upon this concept in proffering effectiveness.
Cohesion
Having an effective and cohesive team does not necessarily refer to the creation of the team itself; rather several other aspects or steps precede the creation or consolidation. Cohesion as a concept thus specifies first the identification of team members and their feasibility or assimilation. A capable team has coherence at its core, but this depends on the ability of managers to select appropriate members whose aspirations and ambitions match the objectives of the team and the organization’s. Saylor (n.d) reiterates these sentiments by asserting that it is prudent to establish team objectives that align the group with the overall organization and that can encourage employee engagement. This is a central precept of creating virtual teams given the geographical dispersion of the members.
Thus, cohesion allows for team member identity, a platform on which they discuss their concerns, contributions, expectations, and commitment. It is only through these axioms that member interdependency is achieved in addition to the effectiveness and maintenance of cohesion. However, several fundamental factors influence cohesion and thus virtual teams. These factors according to Saylor (n.d) include
Similarity : the author contends that the more similar group members are regarding gender, education, age, attitudes, skills, beliefs, and values, the more effectively the team bonds.
Size : teams with fewer members tend to have greater cohesion than larger ones.
Satisfaction : there exists a strong correlation between cohesion and members’ performance, behavior, and adherence to team norms.
Stability : teams that remain together for a longer period exhibit a higher degree of cohesion as opposed to short-lived ones.
Social Diversity Theory
Based on the homophily or similarity-attraction paradigm, social diversity theory posits that individuals who are inherently similar in their educational and training background tend to work together effectively. In essence, this is one of the two theories that implicate cohesion; the other one is cognitive resource diversity. Social diversity theory thus fosters or supports similarity as a factor that affects cohesion. Therefore, it infers that members with similar gender, attitudes, age, education, values, and beliefs tend to work effectively than diverse ones. To be comprehended as an essential theory regarding teams, the theory implores not to be scrutinized under the lenses of discrimination and equity but rather a differential and quintessential theory regarding diversity.
Cognitive Resource Theory
The theory directly differs from the social diversity theory by postulating that diversity of cognitive resources fosters innovation, creativity, problem solving, and flexibility within an organization. Further, the cognitive resource theory encapsulates the functional diversity concept. Here, diverse functional teams refer to teams that are composed of members with differential educational and training backgrounds working together. As corroborated by Peters & Karren (2009), functional diversity bolsters team performance and thereby organizational performance and productivity. According to their study, virtual teams that incorporated functional diversity, as well as trust, had higher performance ratings. A perfect example of a functionally diverse team is the Amish community in the Costello video. Elaborately, the women had different roles from the children and the men but collectively collaborated to achieve their common goal or objective –to raise a barn for the newlywed couple, (Costello, 2011).
Five Dysfunctions of Team
As a general concept in teams, it defines causes of organizational politics and pitfalls of a team as well as how to overcome them. According to Lencioni, the five dysfunctions of a team are
The absence of trust - team members are not comfortable and open with one another
Fear of conflict - refers to the lack of healthy conflict that encourages the development and sustenance of ideas.
Lack of commitment - lack of conflict discourages individuals from committing to as a single idea. The dysfunction further posits that when people have not weighed in on an idea, they do not buy into it and as such, they do not commit.
Unwillingness to hold one another accountable - great team members holds each other accountable as long as there is trust, conflict, and commitment to the achievement of the necessary team objectives. However, when they fail to do so, the team becomes dysfunctional, and effectiveness is compromised.
Inattention to results - here, team members fail to focus on the collective results of the team; instead, they focus on their personal goals, ego, careers, and ambitions, (Jon, 2013).
Reiterating Lencioni’s sentiments regarding fear of conflict or lack of healthy conflict is Stephens & Carmeli (2016). The duo ascertains that expressing negative emotions in a team generates a positive effect on the performance of the team. However, these negative emotions have to be expressed constructively to bolster the members’ capability to harness fundamental knowledge essential in the development of ideas thus enhancing performance.
Conclusion
A virtual team refers to a group of geographically, physically, and organizationally dispersed workers consolidated across space and time via communication and information technologies. Unlike co-located teams, virtual teams’ operations are internet-based enabled by the advancement in information and communication technologies. Thus platforms such as Skype, GoToMeeting, and Google Hangouts have been developed as a result of virtual teams. While technological advancement is the predominant trend fostering virtual teams, other trends such as the need for environmental protection, globalization, need for flexibility, as well as the need to reduce costs have also combined to influence the functionality, adoption, and popularity of the teams.
Nonetheless, in understanding how the different trends influence virtual teams, one needs to consider certain fundamental theories and concepts. These theories affect not only virtual teams but also their functionality and customization. Despite being extensive and plentiful, the most notable theories include social loafing, collective efficacy, social diversity theory, cognitive resource diversity, as well as the five dysfunctions of a team. On this accord, as organizations increasingly turn towards virtual teams as a means to remain competitive within the business environment, virtual teams in itself is becoming a transformational trend that has great promise for the future of not only organizations in terms of cost saving but also employees in maintaining a work-life balance, and the environment in reducing carbon emissions. Nonetheless, as is with all phenomena, moderation is essential, not all organizations will benefit from virtual teams. For some, partial adoption of the trend will yield greater benefits as opposed to a full overhaul of co-located teams and vice versa.
References
Bell, B.S., & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2010). Work teams. In J. M. Levine & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Encyclopedia of group processes & intergroup relations (pp. 956-958) . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Doi: 10.4135/9871412972017.n297
http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=heh&AN=63700082&site=eds-live&scope=site
Jon T. (2013, July 9). Patrick Lencioni – The 5 dysfunctions of a team [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dRKa700RaQ&feature=youtu.be
Peters, L., & Karren, R.J. (2009). An examination of the roles of trust and functional diversity on virtual team performance ratings. Group & Organization Management, 34 (4), 479-504. Doi: 10.1177/1059601107312170
R. Costello. (2011, October 6). Amish barn raising (as depicted in the film “Witness”) [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCXCeV5RbHg
Sarter, S., Ajuja, M., Sarker, S., & Kirkeby, S. (2011, Summer). The role of communication and trust in global virtual teams: A social network perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28 (1), 273-309. doi: 0.2753/MIS0742-1222280109
Saylor. (n.d.). Chapter 9. Managing groups and teams. Retrieved from http://saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BUS208-6.2.pdf
Speed of Trust – Franklin Covey. (2010, December 4). Stephen M R Covey on relationship trust and 13 behaviors of high trust people [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CciecbzzH-g&feature=youtu.be
Stephens, J.P., & Carmeli, A. (2016, July). The positive effect of expressing negative emotions on knowledge creation capability and performance of project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 34 (5), 862-873. http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S0263786316300023&site=eds-live&scope=site
What-When-How. (n.d.). Managing relationships in virtual team socialization (information science). Retrieved from http://what-when-how.com/information-science-and-technology/managing-relationships-in-virtual-team-socialization-information-science/
