Trust in Global Virtual Teams, Research Paper Example

Abstract

That virtual teams pose a series of organizational challenges is beyond any doubts. Simultaneously, it is due to virtual teams that multinational companies can significantly reduce their costs and develop effective project commitments. Certainly, the process of developing a conventional team is dramatically different from the process, which virtual teams undergo in the process of their formation. Moreover, virtual teams often make it difficult for team leaders to monitor their performance and commitment. In this context, the differences between virtual and conventional teams can be roughly categorized across several different lines: leadership, collaboration, commitment, and performance.

Introduction

That virtual teams pose a series of organizational challenges is beyond any doubts. Simultaneously, it is due to virtual teams that multinational companies can significantly reduce their costs and develop effective project commitments. Certainly, the process of developing a conventional team is dramatically different from the process, which virtual teams undergo in the process of their formation. Moreover, virtual teams often make it difficult for team leaders to monitor their performance and commitment. In this context, the differences between virtual and conventional teams can be roughly categorized across several different lines: leadership, collaboration, commitment, and performance.

The case of ComCorp is demonstrative in a sense that it emphasizes the major differences in the process of creating virtual teams and conventional teams that work in one place. Although virtual teams are extremely effective and beneficial in that they erase time and geographical boundaries and tie professionals in one project team regardless of their location, in the process of their formation virtual teams face challenges somewhat different from those, faced by conventional teams. In this context, it is useful to reconsider the process of creating a virtual team through the prism of Tuckman’s four-stage model. The first stage of Tuckman’s team formation model is associated with increased reliance on the leader, little agreement on team aims, and the lack of clarity in terms of each member’s responsibilities and obligations. In case of ComCorp, its training and development team was “loosely affiliated worldwide group of 16 experienced professionals who reported to various Human Resources directors, each supporting a different part of ComCorp’s business” (Buono, 2004). The top priorities across different business units varied and depended on the specific goals of each business unit. As such, with such diversity of goals, the virtual team of experts could not successfully operate in the process of achieving the major organizational objectives.

At the second stage of virtual group formation (storming), the group went through the major restructuring, with only 11 T&D members left (Buono, 2004). Although decisions were difficult and rather ambiguous, the team now reported to one T&D director, to promote integrity and concerted effort in all organizational initiatives. The norming stage in ComCorp covered the growing need for developing clear understanding of each member’s roles and responsibilities, but beyond that, the team had to develop effective technical solutions that would tie members from 17 different zones into one virtual team. As a result, “a Web-based groupware application on the company’s intranet” (Buono, 2004) has become the distinctive feature of the virtual team’s working style. At that stage of team formation, team members and the team leader had to establish the team’s credibility and to select strategies that would also ensure full commitment and involvement of the virtual team in accomplishing critical organizational tasks (Business Balls, 2004). By the time the team arrived to the final, performing stage of its organizational evolution, it was obvious that the processes of team formation in conventional and virtual teams displayed a set of dramatic differences.

First of all, and in distinction from conventional teams, virtual team leaders find it more difficult to create involvement. In case of conventional teams which work in one place, such involvement is easily achieved through better communication and well-established connections and ties between team members, but what if the team members live in locations, which make synchronous communication virtually impossible? ComCorp shows that meeting once a week for a voice-conference is absolutely possible and moreover, necessary for better team members’ involvement. ComCorp uses these voice conferences to check the progress, to modify objectives, to assign responsibilities, and to discuss the critical issues (Buono, 2004). Certainly, such voice conferences should be further complemented with telephone calls, regular emails, voice messages, etc.; in other words, the better contact and communication virtual team members maintain, the better involvement and collaboration in a virtual team is. It should be noted, that collaboration became increasingly problematic at the norming stage of ComCorp team development, when members needed clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities, and when the differences in time and geographical location, as well as the lack of face-to-face contact complicated the overall process of collaborative development (Buono, 2004). ComCorp, however, has proved written communication and written objectives and responsibilities to be an effective tool of virtual team development – such written objectives are less relevant in conventional teams, where members have an opportunity to discuss the major issues in real-time environments, but documentation in virtual teams acquires additional meaning and can be fairly regarded as the critical factor of virtual team efficiency (Buono, 2004).

Performance management stands out as another essential element of virtual teams’ formation. When it comes to comparing virtual teams to conventional ones, the former are more likely to engage in aggressive processes of structural development, due to the fact that traditional instruments of measuring performance are not applicable in virtual environments (Buono, 2004). In this situation, virtual teams require establishing a specific set of performance measurement mechanisms; in distinction from conventional teams, these will extensively use various technological solutions (e.g., telephone meetings and weekly conference calls), and will require additional evaluation effort – the effort, which may not be needed in teams that work together in one place.

Commitment and leadership are the two other components that differ in virtual and conventional teams. It is no secret that in the process of development, virtual teams make it extremely difficult for the leader to demonstrate his commitment to other team members. Moreover, in virtual teams leaders are often challenged by the need to promote shared goals. Professional research confirms that “the construction of shared goals is often by no means a one-off activity, but rather a process that requires the participation of all parties involved” (Panteli, 2005). In this situation, where virtual team leaders cannot contact each team member personally, they can provide regular mentoring and feedback as a measure of their commitment to team goals. By making team members accountable for the results of these mentoring and training efforts, virtual team will also promote commitment on the side of each virtual team members. These efforts and accountability can also be included into the set of shared goals.

Conclusion

The process of team development in virtual and conventional teams is dramatically different. Where conventional teams can use the benefits of face-to-face contact and continuous communication, maintaining synchronous communication in virtual teams can be extremely problematic. Leaders in virtual teams usually face a set of challenges, including the need to promote commitment, collaboration, involvement, and to measure team performance. These are successfully resolved through the use of technological devices, written role guidelines, well-developed performance measurement mechanisms, and improved accountability principles.

References

Business Balls. (2004). Tuckman forming storming norming performing model. Business Balls. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm

Buono, A.F. (2004). Leadership challenges in global virtual teams: Lessons from the field. SAM Advanced Management Journal, September. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from http://www.allbusiness.com/management/284005-1.html

Panteli, N. (2005). Trust in global virtual teams. Ariadne, no. 23. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue43/panteli/