Achieving Success In Virtual Teams: Harnessing The Po 295970

Achieving Success In Virtual Teamsharnessing The Power Of Virtual Wor

Achieving Success in Virtual Teams “Harnessing the power of virtual worlds is now a necessity as industry penetrates every comer of our planet and workers are required to be in touch with teammates on the next block and on distant continents at any time. In most companies, participating in virtual teams is no longer an exotic exercise, but a bottom-line requirement.â€[endnoteRef:1] [1: R. Ubell, “Virtual Team Learning,†T + D 64(8) (August 2010): 52 (7 pages).] “Often widely separated geographically and located in distant time zones, virtual teams are frequently composed of members from different cultures who work in different organizations with unfamiliar standards and models of behavior.â€[endnoteRef:2] Members of virtual teams most likely have never met each other in person.[endnoteRef:3] [2: R. Ubell, “Virtual Team Learning,†T + D 64(8) (August 2010): 52 (7 pages).] [3: W.D. Gardner, “Enterprise 2.0: Making Virtual Collaboration Work,†Informationweek, /news/telecom/collaboration/.] NetAge, a company that provides consulting services for networked organizations, maintains that the secret to successful virtual teams is 10 percent technology and 90 percent people.[endnoteRef:4] Likewise the failure of virtual teams is largely due to people. The substantial role of people in the success of virtual teams prompts the question: What are some human factors that contribute to the success of virtual teams, and what are some human factors that contribute to the failure of virtual teams? [4: Anonymous, “Virtual Teams,†NetAge web site, http: (accessed June 21, 2011).] Virtual teams require interdependent work relationships.

“Interdependent work teams share common goals and responsibilities; at the same time, the team members are self-reliant and self-motivated.â€[endnoteRef:5] Effective virtual collaboration requires an understanding of people, cultures, and organizations.[endnoteRef:6] Employees who can tolerate or even relish ambiguity in their job responsibilities tend to function well in virtual teams, whereas employees “who like regimented schedules and concrete instructions on how to do their jobs won’t perform as well in virtual work settings.â€[endnoteRef:7] [5: B. Leonard, “Managing Virtual Teams,†HRMagazine 56(6) (June 2011): 39 (4 pages).] [6: W.D. Gardner, “Enterprise 2.0: Making Virtual Collaboration Work,†Informationweek, /news/telecom/collaboration/ (accessed June 20, 2011).] [7: B. Leonard, “Managing Virtual Teams,†HRMagazine 56(6) (June 2011): 39 (4 pages).] Two very key human factors that determine the success or failure of virtual teams are communication effectiveness and stimulating work. When it comes to communications in virtual team settings, ambiguity increases the chances of failure and clarity of communication contributes to success. “Employees must write well to draft easy-to-understand and to-the-point communications. Ambiguity can be a detriment because the way virtual workers write and comprehend written communications can alter meaning and generate unneeded tension among team members and managers.â€[endnoteRef:8] As Joseph Grenny, writing in Leadership Excellence , observes: “The challenge [that] virtual teams face is productively brainstorming ideas, solving problems, and executing on projects with people whose physical location not to mention specialty, and in some cases, culture makes it difficult to freely and clearly speak one’s mind.â€[endnoteRef:9] [8: B. Leonard, “Managing Virtual Teams,†HRMagazine 56(6) (June 2011): 39 (4 pages).] [9: J. Grenny, “Virtual Teams,†Leadership Excellence 27(5) (May 2010): 20.] Reporting in The Wall Street Journal , Lynda Gratton observes that the work of virtual teams is frequently unsupervised and consequently team members’ tasks should be challenging and stimulating. Otherwise, disinterest could cause the virtual team to disintegrate.[endnoteRef:10] When team members do not experience the work as stimulating and challenging, “[t]hey simply fade away, with fewer and fewer dialing into the weekly conference calls or posting ideas on the shared site. It’s not that the members don’t like one another. It’s simply that the atmosphere becomes more like a country club than a dynamic collection of inspired people.â€[endnoteRef:11] [10: L. Gratton, “Business Insight (A Special Report): Organization; Working Together...When Apart: As employees scatter around the globe, virtual teamwork has become crucial; Here are 10 rules for making it work,†The Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition) (June 16, 2007): R4.] [11: L. Gratton, “Business Insight (A Special Report): Organization; Working Together...When Apart: As employees scatter around the globe, virtual teamwork has become crucial; Here are 10 rules for making it work,†The Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition) (June 16, 2007): R4.] Volvo is one company that has taken the issues of communication effectiveness and stimulating work to heart in working toward making its virtual teams as effective as possible.[endnoteRef:12] With a very significant global footprint of manufacturing in 19 countries and sales in 180 countries, and 120,000 employees with half of those being information workers, the Volvo Information Technology (VIT) unit seeks to support team effectiveness around the world.[endnoteRef:13] The mission for improving the effectiveness of the company’s virtual teams is to “[a]ssist teams with establishing effective ways of communicating and collaborating to reach business objectives.â€[endnoteRef:14] [12: W.D. Gardner, “Enterprise 2.0: Making Virtual Collaboration Work,†Informationweek, /news/telecom/collaboration/ (accessed June 20, 2011).] [13: V. Adamson, “Volvo: Driving Virtual Team Productivity,†Enterprise 2.0 Conference (June 22-25, 2009): 2.] [14: V. Adamson, “Volvo: Driving Virtual Team Productivity,†Enterprise 2.0 Conference (June 22-25, 2009): 3.] Volvo evaluates the effectiveness of its virtual teams with a variety of metrics in four major categories that can be framed in the form of the following four questions: “How aligned is the team’s understanding of goals, actions, and expected results? How familiar is the team with roles and responsibilities? How comfortable is the team with communicating internally?

How clear are project timelines and milestones?â€[endnoteRef:15] [15: V. Adamson, “Volvo: Driving Virtual Team Productivity,†Enterprise 2.0 Conference (June 22-25, 2009): 5.] At peak performance, Volvo’s virtual teams would be judged as having attained “shared accountability [and] shared leadership for achieving team objectives.â€[endnoteRef:16] Attaining this level of virtual team performance is possible only by having interesting work for the team members to do and effective communications among them. [16: V. Adamson, “Volvo: Driving Virtual Team Productivity,†Enterprise 2.0 Conference (June 22-25, 2009): 5.] DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Describe the attributes that contribute to the success of virtual teams and those that contribute to the failure of virtual teams.

1. Discuss the extent to which the characteristics of well-functioning, effective groups overlap the attributes that contribute to the success of virtual teams. 1. Explain how cultural diversity can affect the effective functioning of virtual teams operating in a global economy. 1.

Is Volvo’s approach to evaluating the effectiveness of its virtual teams one that could serve as a useful model for other organizations to follow in evaluating their own virtual teams? Justify your answer. SOURCE: This case was written by Michael K. McCuddy, The Louis S. and Mary L. Morgal Chair of Christian Business Ethics and Professor of Management, College of Business Administration, Valparaiso University.

Paper For Above instruction

In the contemporary global economy, virtual teams have become a fundamental component of organizational strategies, driven by technological advancements and the increasing need for geographically dispersed collaboration. Achieving success in virtual teams hinges on a complex interplay of human factors, communication efficiencies, cultural considerations, and effective leadership. This paper explores the attributes that contribute to the success and failure of virtual teams, the overlap with traditional effective group characteristics, the impact of cultural diversity, and critically examines Volvo’s model for evaluating virtual team effectiveness.

Attributes Contributing to Success and Failure of Virtual Teams

Successful virtual teams share several key attributes, including clear communication, mutual trust, defined roles, shared goals, and effective use of technology. Clear and concise communication reduces ambiguity and minimizes misunderstandings, which is crucial given the lack of physical presence (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). Mutual trust is vital for fostering collaboration and risk-taking, especially when team members operate across different cultural and organizational boundaries (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). Defined roles and responsibilities ensure accountability and reduce confusion, while shared goals align team efforts towards common objectives (Hackman, 2002). Effective technology use, including collaboration tools, videoconferencing, and project management platforms, facilitates seamless interaction and information sharing (Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004).

Conversely, failure factors include poor communication, cultural misunderstandings, lack of trust, and insufficient leadership. Ambiguity in messaging often leads to misinterpretations, conflicts, and reduced motivation (Leonard, 2011). Cultural diversity, if unmanaged, can cause differences in work practices, communication styles, and expectations, which hinder cohesion (Stahl et al., 2010). Trust deficits prevent open sharing of ideas and risk-taking, which are essential for innovative problem-solving (Chissent et al., 2014). Lack of effective leadership and unstructured work environments result in disengagement and task neglect (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006).

Overlap with Well-Functioning Group Characteristics

Effective virtual teams exhibit many characteristics of traditional high-performing groups, such as shared vision, open communication, mutual respect, and accountability (Tuckman, 1965). The primary difference lies in the mode of interaction; virtual settings demand additional skills and tools to foster cohesion and trust. The importance of leadership, clear roles, and shared goals remains consistent across both contexts. However, virtual teams require a heightened emphasis on communication clarity and cultural sensitivity, given the absence of physical cues and face-to-face interactions (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005). The core attributes—trust, commitment, and shared purpose—are universal, but their development hinges on the ability to leverage technology and manage intercultural dynamics effectively (Morgeson et al., 2010).

Impact of Cultural Diversity on Virtual Teams

Cultural diversity in virtual teams, comprising members from varied national, organizational, and cultural backgrounds, can be both an asset and a challenge. Diversity fosters innovation by bringing multiple perspectives and problem-solving approaches (Stahl et al., 2010). However, differences in communication styles, time perceptions, work ethics, and conflict resolution can impede collaboration if not properly managed (Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001). For example, high-context cultures may prefer indirect communication, while low-context cultures favor explicit messages, leading to misunderstandings (Hall, 1976). Cross-cultural training, culturally aware leadership, and inclusive communication strategies are essential in harnessing the benefits of diversity while mitigating conflicts (Meyer, 2014).

Volvo’s Model for Evaluating Virtual Team Effectiveness

Volvo’s approach to assessing virtual team performance through four key metrics—alignment of goals, clarity of roles, communication comfort, and understanding of timelines—provides a comprehensive framework that aligns with established best practices. This model emphasizes shared accountability and leadership, which are crucial for high-functioning teams (Anantatmula & Shrivastav, 2012). Its focus on tangible metrics allows organizations to measure progress objectively and adjust strategies accordingly (Hertel et al., 2005). This model can serve as a useful benchmark for other organizations, given its emphasis on clear expectations and continuous evaluation, fostering a culture of accountability and continuous improvement (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006).

However, limitations include the potential neglect of softer cultural and psychological factors influencing team dynamics. Therefore, combining such quantitative assessments with qualitative feedback and fostering an environment conducive to open dialogue would enhance Volvo’s model (Morgeson et al., 2010).

Conclusion

In conclusion, succeeding in virtual teamwork requires a blend of clear communication, trust, cultural sensitivity, and effective leadership. While traditional group attributes form a foundation, virtual teams necessitate additional skills in managing ambiguity, technological tools, and intercultural differences. Volvo’s evaluation framework exemplifies a structured approach to measuring effectiveness, but its success depends on its integration within a broader, culturally aware team development strategy. By understanding and leveraging human factors, organizations can transform virtual teams into resilient, productive, and innovative units capable of thriving in the global economy.

References

• Anantatmula, V., & Shrivastav, B. (2012). Evolution of project teams for generation Y workforce. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(1), 9-26.
• Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451-495.
• Gibson, C., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2001). Metaphors and the development of team cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 102–112.
• Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Anchor Books.
• Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 69-95.
• Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791-815.
• Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: How many minds are better than one. Sage Publications.
• Meyer, E. (2014). The Culture Map: Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business. Public Affairs.
• Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A view from the dark side. Leadership Quarterly, 21(4), 543-556.
• Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: A review of current literature and directions for future research. ACM SIGMIS Data Base, 35(1), 6-36.