managing virtual teams

Managing Virtual Teams: Effective Practices and Technology Resources

Gary Woodill Ed.D | Director, Research and Analysis | Brandon Hall Research Chris Downs, MAPW | Researcher and Writer | Brandon Hall Research

Table of Contents

Brandon Hall Research is Independent, unbiased, and objective............................ 4 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 7 Part 1 – Pros and Cons of Virtual Teams............................................................................................ 9

Benefits of Virtual Teams..............................................................................................13 Issues in Managing Virtual Teams...............................................................................14

Part 2 – Effectively Managing Virtual Teams ...................................................................................20 Leading Virtual Teams...................................................................................................21 Creating Virtual Teams..................................................................................................25 Facilitating Trust in Virtual Teams...............................................................................27 Managing Virtual Teams ...............................................................................................29

Part 3 – Research on the Effectiveness of Virtual Teams..............................................................33 Summary: Success Factors for Managing Virtual Teams ........................................36

Part 4 - Technology for Supporting Virtual Teams...........................................................................39 Web Collaborative Software .........................................................................................40 Project and Team Management Software .................................................................48 Conferencing and Meeting Software...........................................................................51

References.............................................................................................................................................57

June 2009 Do not reproduce 3

Our Statement of Independence

Brandon Hall Research is Independent, unbiased, and objective

We believe that it is important for a research firm to be transparent about how it makes money. That

way, customers can judge our integrity for themselves.

How We Make Money Brandon Hall Research makes money by selling research publications (in various forms such as reports

and KnowledgeBases) and consulting services; by operating conferences, workshops, and an awards

program; and by selling advertising in some of our publications and sponsorships of some of our events.

• Our consulting clients include both user organizations and vendor organizations.

• User clients typically engage us to advise them on technology purchases and implementation

strategies.

• Vendor clients typically engage us to advise them on marketplace trends or to speak about

industry trends at vendor functions.

What We Don’t Do • We do not charge vendors (or any organizations) to be included in any of our publications.

• We do not charge different prices to vendors and users.

• We do not charge vendors (or any organizations) to quote from our publications in press

releases.

• We do not charge award winners to use their award in marketing.

• We do not allow vendors (or any organizations) included in our publications to make evaluative

statements about themselves. Participating organizations provide factual information only.

• We do not permit any company to sponsor research or a publication in which it is also

participating as a subject.

• We do not benefit in any way from the sales of any products included in our publications or

services.

• We do not provide leads to vendors or assist them in selling.

• We do not serve on the boards of any learning-related companies or benefit financially from

the success of any learning-related company.

We believe that the way we make money allows us to be independent, unbiased, and objective. We

invite you to judge for yourself. We also invite you to contact us with any question about our business

relationships or sources of revenue.


About the Authors

Gary Woodill began as a classroom teacher in 1971, and has been involved with the

use of computers in education since 1974, when he was introduced to the PLATO

system for computer-assisted instruction. In 1984, Gary received a doctorate in

applied psychology from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at the

University of Toronto, and in 1985, he started the first course for teachers on

computers in education at Ryerson University in Toronto. In 1993, he co-founded an

educational multimedia company that developed educational CD-ROMs for children.

In 1998, he designed an adaptable learning management system and has

developed more than 60 online courses for various corporate clients. Gary is

director of Research and Analysis at Brandon Hall Research where he writes rep

on emerging learning technologies. In addition, Gary presents workshops and

Webinars on the topics he is researching. He can be reached at

orts

hall.com.

gary@brandon-


mailto:[email protected]

Christina Downs is an editor for Brandon Hall Research, where she has worked on e-

learning reports, knowledgebases, newsletters, and Web copy. Christina’s education

includes an M.A. in professional writing from Carnegie Mellon University, a B.A. in

English writing from the University of Pittsburgh, and a B.S in electrical engineering

from the University of Pittsburgh. Her career has included editing, proofreading,

technical writing, and publishing. Christina is also author of the book Simply

Balanced: Bible “Contradictions” Teach Balanced Living. Christina lives in Western

Pennsylvania with her husband and two children. She can be reached at

[email protected] .


mailto:[email protected]

Introduction Brandon Hall Research understands first-hand the benefits and difficulties of

managing virtual teams. At Brandon Hall Research, we have been working as a

virtual team for a number of years. Although we are headquartered in California,

many of our staff members are located across the United States and Canada, and,

for about a year, one researcher even worked from New Zealand. Using a virtual

team approach has worked well for us, but it is not without its difficulties. This

research report looks at the advantages and disadvantages a company faces in

using virtual teams, the process of setting up and managing a virtual team, the

research on the effectiveness of virtual teams, and the technological resources that

are needed to support this type of organization.

In our organization, we have experimented with various ways of connecting the

members of our virtual team. A few years ago, team members primarily

communicated through telephone conferencing and e-mail, supplemented by face-to-

face meetings at conferences or other events throughout the year. In the past two

years, we have moved to Web 2.0 technologies, such as voice over IP (VoIP)

conferencing using Skype and Saba’s Centra platform, instant messaging (chat),

video conferencing (between two members at a time only), virtual world

environments like Second Life, blogging (using WordPress), micro-blogging (Twitter

and Facebook), social networking software (Ning), and wikis. Most recently, we have

embraced “cloud computing” by using a number of collaborative programs — such as

Google Docs — and by realizing the importance of maintaining a common calendar

that is accessible to all. Along the way, we have experimented with many other

information and communication technologies.

In using these tools, we have learned that merely accessing a variety of technologies

is not enough for a virtual team to operate smoothly. Every team member needs to

be committed to making the company and the professional relationships succeed,

and many issues enter into this success. In particular, we have seen that it’s

important to allow social time with each other before working online, to follow an

agenda, to appoint someone to chair each meeting, and to follow up each team


meeting with proper documentation and action items. These actions help ensure

camaraderie and accountability. We are not perfect at these duties and are still

learning as we go, but, as a virtual team, we function very well.

It helps that the members of our virtual team are open to change, particularly

experimenting with new approaches and technologies. The senior analysts are

always on the lookout for new tools that could help our virtual team function better

and that also would lead to lower costs and higher efficiencies. While we also

research and write about these technologies, we don’t adopt them for their own

sakes; rather, we examine them in terms of their impact on the company’s business.

This report is designed to accomplish the following: to pass on the insights of our

experience operating as a virtual team, to review the research on the effectiveness of

virtual teams, and to suggest the best practices and processes if you are considering

setting up a virtual team within your organization. Understanding more about how

successful virtual teams work, including their rewards and pitfalls, will improve your

confidence as you begin.


Part 1 – Pros and Cons of Virtual Teams Although they may not use the actual term, groups of employees who work together

on a shared project, from a distance using information and communications

technologies (ICT), are known as “virtual teams.” Sometimes they are also called

“offsite teams,” “offsite employees,” “remote teams,” “distance workers,”

“teleworkers,” “telecommuters,” “computer-supported cooperative workgroups,” and

other terms. In this research report, we consistently use the term “virtual teams” to

describe these groups of employees.

Kirkman and Mathieu (2004) define virtual teams as “… groups of workers with

unique skills, who often reside in different geographical places and have to use for

co-operation means of ICT [information and communications technologies] in order

to span the boundaries of time and space.” While using electronic tools is a

necessary part of the definition of virtual teams, most virtual team members do

occasionally meet face-to-face.

Michael Schrage (1995) suggests that the concept of a team as an organizational

structure with set roles may be outdated. He says “the real basic structure of the

workplace is the relationship. Each relationship is itself part of a larger network of

relationships. These relationships can be measured along all kinds of dimensions –

from political to professional expertise. The fact is that work gets done through these

relationships.”

In 2005, the same authors defined “team virtuality” as “the extent to which team

members use virtual tools to coordinate and execute team processes, the amount of

informational value provided by such tools, and the synchronicity of team member

virtual interaction” (Kirkman and Mathieu, 2005).

The degree of virtuality – or “virtualness” – is the basis of Helms and Raiszadeh’s

(2002) classification of virtual firms. For them, some companies are 100 percent

virtual, existing simply as a set of Web pages and outsourced services. Next in the

continuum, “hollow firms” maintain a small staff in a central office, but outsource all

non-core functions to achieve a competitive advantage “by seeking economies within


the basic, current structures.” Finally, at the far end of the scale, “virtual

offices/teams” are those without a central physical location for each employee,

where workers use telecommuting to complete part-time virtual work. This is also

known as “hoteling” because space at the central office is temporary and

interchangeable, while the firm’s employees either entirely work at home or are fully

mobile (working from hotels or vehicles and visiting the central office “hotel” on

occasion).

At Brandon Hall Research, most staff members work from home most of the time,

but we also connect at other locations, such as conferences, universities, libraries,

and coffee shops. The world of work has truly become portable, so an employee’s

location is not a critical factor in whether a person can work or not. This is the goal of

cloud computing: that you can work from any location, and still access all the

information you need to carry out your tasks. One reason we consider ourselves a

virtual team is because we share all the characteristics of a virtual team, as

enumerated by Lipnack and Stamps (1997) in their publication of the principles of

virtual teams (Figure 1).

Inputs Processes Produced

Outputs

People Independent

Members

Shared

Leadership

Integrated

Levels

Purpose Cooperative

Goals

Interdependent

Tasks

Concrete

Results

Links Multiple

Media

Boundary-

crossing

Interactions

Trusting

Relationships

Figure 1: Virtual Team System of Principles

(From Virtual Teams, Lipnack and Stamps, 1997)


Brandon Hall Research employs independent team members who share

accountability at integrated levels of production. We cooperate on shared goals, we

depend on each other to complete tasks, and we deliver concrete results (such as

this report, our learning tool knowledgebases, or the Brandon Hall Webinar series).

We are connected to one another through various media (Internet, cell phone, etc.),

our personal interactions cross state and time-zone boundaries every day to

accomplish our work, and we trust each other to produce agreed-upon deliverables.

Lipnack and Stamps (1997) would certainly consider our organization a virtual team.

Even while individuals work together and separately on shared tasks, within our

organization, we do hold different kinds of virtual team meetings, similar to those

identified by Kimball (1997):

• Executive teams - Usually made up of managers or senior analysts with

responsibilities for specific functions in the organization.

• Project teams - Groups created around a specific task where members are

selected for their expertise and that function for the life of the project.

• Community of practice teams - People working on common tasks or in the

same professional field who voluntarily get together to share experiences and

knowledge. At Brandon Hall Research, we attend a monthly company

meeting to socialize and exchange relevant information among those who

work for the company. Many of us are also involved in communities outside

the company, many of which can be seen as communities of practice.

In these ways and others, virtual teams can connect “islands of knowledge” into “self

organizing, knowledge sharing networked professional communities” that foster

collaboration and spread best practices. At the same time, this requires a new

management mindset that breaks away from the traditional command-and-control

management of teams to a much looser management style that encourages

cooperation and sharing responsibilities among all members of the team. To quote

Geisler (2002):


“The Industrial Age was characterized by hierarchical organizations that

relied on management direction and organizational departmentalization to

provide order and consistency. Rules and auditing processes were important

means of control. Employees’ roles and responsibilities tended to be

specialized and information typically went to management rather than to

employees. Hard work was encouraged more than a balance between work

and home life. Conservative improvements tended to be the norm because

organizational controls typically inhibited risk taking … Unlike rational

organizational structures of the past, teams rely on employee empowerment

rather than management control and direction. Team organizations have

created work structures that are more democratic and flexible with a

common mission of sharing responsibility for results and decisions between

management and workers … Self-managing teams are said to be the key to

leaner and more flexible organizations capable of adjusting rapidly to

changes in the environment and technology.”

Other views suggest different ways to categorize virtual teams. For example, Duarte

and Snyder (2007) list the types of virtual teams by the kind of work they do:

• Networked teams

• Parallel teams

• Project or product development teams

• Work, functional, or production teams

• Service teams

• Management teams

• Action teams

Alternately, virtual teams can be viewed as building blocks for organizational

learning. Because virtual teams work at a distance, the work of a team is usually

recorded; this can be added to the repository of an organization’s knowledge base.


Benefits of Virtual Teams As companies become more global and operate in dispersed geographic areas,

virtual teams have become almost indispensable for businesses. The expertise

needed to fulfill a company’s mission can now be drawn from almost anywhere in

the world. Virtual teams generated new modes of communication that have, in turn,

influenced the way people work. For example, reliable asynchronous

communications allow team members to work different shifts in a continuous

workflow.

Economic benefits of virtual teams include reducing the amount of time needed to

complete a job, reducing workspace costs, developing products more efficiently,

increasing productivity, providing better customer service, improving access to global

markets, and benefiting the environment due to reduced travel (Horwitz, et al.,

2006). “People can be recruited for their competencies, not just physical location”

(Gould, 2006). In many cases, physical disabilities also become irrelevant because of

an employee’s ability to work from home in a virtual team.

Virtual teams make businesses more flexible in that virtual teams can adapt rapidly

to changing circumstances. “Gaining competitive advantage in a global environment

means continually reshaping the organization to maximize grants, address threats,

and increase speed. The use of virtual teams has become a common way of doing

this,” contend Duarte and Snyder in their 2007 book, Mastering Virtual Teams. “The

goal is to leverage intellectual capital and apply it as quickly as possible.”

In summary, virtual teams provide the following benefits, among others:

• Expertise (finding the best people without limiting hiring to specific locations)

• Economic (faster/shorter projects, less expensive workspaces, more efficient

work, more productive -- and more satisfied and loyal – employees)

• Flexibility/adaptability (changeable teams in a changing world)

• Environmental (fewer employees driving to and from the office)


Issues in Managing Virtual Teams Despite the many benefits, not all virtual teams perform well, and some fail at their

tasks. Nemiro et al. (2008) identify the six major challenges of virtual teams as

distance, time, technology, culture, trust, and leadership. Beyerlein et al. (2008) say

the following about the failure of virtual teams:

“… individuals who collaborate in teams do not always achieve their goals. In

fact, there are many causes of poor performance. Often mediocrity is taken

for granted, as many teams have little awareness or understanding of what

constitutes optimal performance. Consequently, there is no investment in

improving the effectiveness of the commonly agreed on critical success

factors needed for team success -- elements such as team structure and

process, team skills, shared understanding, and the varied support systems

that provide facilitating organization contexts for team activities.” (p. 32)

Gerda Mihhailova (2007) notes that “turning ordinary teamwork fully (or at least

partially) into virtual teamwork introduces a whole new range of problems for

managers.” Virtual teams can be “communication challenged, culturally challenged,

and task challenged” (Malhotra, 2003). Most problems don’t stem from the fact that

virtual teams use technologies for maintaining contact but, rather, from the changing

nature of how the teams function in the workplace. Teams are no longer fixed

entities, drawn entirely from within an organization. Instead, employees may be part

of several different teams, with members distributed throughout the organization

and beyond, in varying geographical locations. Such teams may form and reform

continuously, resulting in multiple reporting relationships for each team member.

We are just beginning to learn how to manage the complexity of virtual teams, so it

should not surprise us that a number of issues or problems can arise from these new

forms of organizational collaboration. The 2004 review of the literature on virtual

teams by Powell, et al. revealed a number of issues that practitioners should be

aware of in setting up and managing a virtual team. These issues include the

following:

• Initial design and composition of the team


• Cultural differences among team members

• Technical expertise and its effect on team performance

• Training

• Relationship building

• Team cohesion

• Trust among team members

• Communications

• Coordination

• Task-Technology-Structure Fit

• Team performance

• Satisfaction of team members

Let’s briefly look at each of these factors.

Initial design and composition of the team - Teams need to develop a shared

language and a shared understanding of the team tasks. Teambuilding exercises,

shared norms, and a clear team structure all contribute to the success of a virtual

team.

Cultural differences among team members - Cultural differences among team

members can lead to coordination difficulties, and can create obstacles to effective

communication.

Technical expertise and its effect on team performance - Lack of technical expertise

and the inability to overcome technical problems negatively impact an individual’s

satisfaction with the team experience and negatively impacts performance.

Training - Consistent training among all team members improves the team’s

performance. Early training also can foster cohesiveness, trust, teamwork,

commitment, and satisfaction, and can improve the quality of decisions.


Relationship building - Compared to traditional teams, members of virtual teams

generally report weaker relational links to other members of the team. Over time,

however, this can change, especially if face-to-face meetings also occur among team

members early in a project. It also helps if team members send social

communications among themselves in addition to task-oriented messages.

Team cohesion - Cohesion among team members has been associated with better

performance and greater satisfaction of team members. At least one study has

shown that women in virtual teams receive greater team cohesiveness compared

with men in virtual teams.

Trust among team members - Developing trust is a big issue in virtual teams, as it is

often hard to assess the trustworthiness of team members if you have never met

them. For many virtual teams, trust needs to develop quickly. Interestingly, in virtual

teams, many members initially assume the others are trustworthy unless indicators

suggest they are not.

Communications - For virtual teams to work well, members need to be excellent

communicators. Communications can be more difficult in virtual teams because of

the challenges of time delays in sending feedback, the lack of a common frame of

reference, differences in interpreting text, and the omission of nonverbal cues.

Coordination - Coordination has been linked to virtual team performance, and the

difficulties that virtual teams face have been studied extensively. Coordination

difficulties have been attributed to working across time zones, mixing different

cultures, and including members with “divergent mental models.”

Task-Technology-Structure Fit – It is important to ensure a good fit between the tasks

assigned to a virtual team and the technologies available to them. It has been found

that electronic communications are best suited for more structured tasks, such as

routine analysis or monitoring the status of a project.

Team performance – Most studies show little significant difference between the

performance of virtual teams and face-to-face teams. However, in one study, virtual


teams generated more ideas than traditional teams. On the other hand, virtual

teams often take longer to reach decisions.

Satisfaction of team members – The results on this factor are mixed, with some

studies showing greater satisfaction for each type of team. Satisfied virtual team

members were more likely to have been given training and used more

communications methods than those team members who felt less satisfied.

DeRosa, et al. (2004) say that “… the lack of physical interaction results in reduced

verbal, social, status cues that are typically present in face-to-face (FTF)

communication.” This occurs due to the difficulty in creating a sense of “shared

space” with virtual teams. Leadership issues can arise, as many virtual teams form

for short periods of time and witness many changes in membership. Virtual team

managers need to learn new skills, including new ways to monitor employees,

provide feedback, and resolve conflicts. Team building exercises seem especially

important for managers of virtual teams to master.

Because virtual team members rarely see each other during meetings, members can

often be multitasking. Christina Wasson (2004), an anthropologist who studied

multitasking in virtual groups, contends that both merits and problems arise when

virtual team members multitask during online meetings. She suggests that

multitasking can be used in the following circumstances:

1. Multitasking enhances employee productivity when it uses an employee’s

extra attention, which would otherwise not be used by the meeting, taking

advantage of additional attention resources previously unavailable (in an

onsite meeting or during regular work). Essentially, employees do more work

than would be possible in either situation alone.

2. Multitasking does not diminish the productivity of a meeting as long as

employees make the meeting their first priority and only place excess

attention into other activities.


According to Wasson, “under these two conditions, multitasking enhances the

productivity of the organization as a whole.” Additional conditions for multitasking

include the following:

1. When other activities, which are considered barriers between the virtual

meeting and the participant’s local space, are performed appropriately, then

these activities in the local space will not interfere with the meeting.

2. The individual’s personal skill at multitasking needs to be adequate to his or

her tasks.

3. Multitasking only succeeds when the meeting activity does not absorb the full

attention of the participant.

4. The topic of the meeting conversation must be less critical to the hearer

during those times when he or she engages in multitasking.

5. Multitasking is effective when the individual is unexpectedly faced, in his or

her local space, with a high priority claim on his or her attention that he or

she can deal with quickly.

As seen above, the practice of multitasking provides benefits when it is done in a

way that does not interfere with the primary meeting or when it accomplishes other

unexpected high-priority tasks. This leads into the following merits typically observed

from multitasking during virtual team meetings:

1. Employees who are multitasking tend to be more productive.

2. Additional work is accomplished.

3. Team members have no idea other work is being done, so no one feels they

are being ignored, as can happen during onsite meetings when a member’s

attention wavers.

4. Team members tend to feel less bored during meetings, an issue that also

can be addressed by more effectively designing and holding meetings,

whether onsite or online.


5. Employees may feel as though they accomplish more, lessening the stress of

a heavy workload – in turn, helping the person work more calmly with less

stress.

Unfortunately, these merits can be nullified by some of the following disadvantages

of multitasking:

1. Meeting participants forget to put their phones on mute.

2. Meeting participants’ attempts at multitasking exceed their personal skills to

distribute their attention, leading them to miss points and slowing down the

meeting.

3. Meeting participants give too much of their attention to local office activities,

with too little attention left to adequately attend to the meeting.

4. Meeting participants fail to notice an important topic, or fail to pay more

attention to meeting topics at which they are the experts.

5. Meeting participants do not properly assess the relative importance of

competing claims on their attention.

Wasson then suggests solutions to each of these five problem areas. One solution to

all of the problems discussed above is to effectively use information technology to

support the way virtual teams function. Malhotra (2004) lists four ways the IT

department can support how virtual teams function:

• Support for task coordination

• Support for external activities

• Support for distributed cognition

• Support for interactivity

In summary, while virtual teams differ from traditional teams in important ways, and,

while problems arise, these differences and problems can usually be overcome with

effective leadership, ongoing management, individual accountability, and

appropriate technology.


Part 2 – Effectively Managing Virtual Teams Effectively managing virtual teams starts with leaders who can confidently lead

without being overly involved in every detail of a project. That is because the

members of virtual teams need to be trusted to do much of the work on their own,

and to be able to manage their time and tasks without extensive supervision. This

combination of flexible leadership, trust, and personal responsibility is critical for a

virtual team to work successfully. Nemiro et al. (2008) comment:

“Virtual team leaders operate in different conditions than leaders of

traditional code located teams. They are often called on to play both a team

member and a leader role simultaneously, and they may be part of more

than one virtual team, with a leadership role in one and a member role in

another … researchers have found that effective virtual team leaders need to

perform multiple leadership roles simultaneously.”


Leading Virtual Teams DeRosa, et al. (2004) say that, for virtual teams, “… the lack of physical interaction

results in reduced verbal, social, status cues that are typically present in face-to-face

(FTF) communication.” This occurs because it is difficult to create a sense of “shared

space” with virtual teams. Leadership issues can arise, as many virtual teams form

for short periods of time and witness many changes in membership. Virtual team

managers need to learn new skills, including new ways to monitor employees,

provide feedback, and resolve conflicts. Compared to face-to-face teams, managing

virtual teams, especially those in virtual worlds, requires a different approach or

touch. For example, part of the shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 technologies has been

the change in emphasis from individual learning to team-based collaborative

learning. This represents a fundamental shift in how learning occurs, as we move

from a model of instructor-led teaching of individuals to one of learner-led finding,

doing, and collaborating in small groups. Virtual team managers need to understand,

and even embrace, these differences. With this shift, all leaders need to continually

evolve, regardless of whether they are virtual or onsite.

Michael Fullan (2001), in his influential book, Leading in a Culture of Change, states,

“The more complex society gets, the more sophisticated leadership must become.”

Leadership in virtual worlds is not about traditional “command and control”

structures, but about providing direction and support to team members when and

where it is needed. Even further, virtual leadership involves fostering the leadership

of others, and individuals are given even more responsibility for managing their own

work. With this increased responsibility comes the need for both managers and

individuals to recognize, from both sides, when manager support or intervention is

necessary.

Because problems in today’s society have become so complex, and are constantly

changing, the old image of a “seasoned warrior” leading the troops into battle simply

no longer works. As Thomas Homer-Dixon (2000) wrote in The Ingenuity Gap, “We

demand that [leaders] solve, or at least manage, a multitude of interconnected

problems that can develop into crises without warning; we require them to navigate


an increasingly turbulent reality that is, in key aspects, literally incomprehensible to

the human mind; we buffet them on every side with bolder, more powerful special

interests that challenge every innovative policy idea; we submerge them in often

unhelpful and distracting information; and we force them to decide and act at an

ever faster pace.” (p. 15)

Leading a virtual team takes a special person with multiple skill sets. Nemiro et al.

(2008) suggest that effective leaders of virtual teams must carry out at least six

different roles in doing their jobs:

• Living example: Serve as a rare model of effective virtual teaming

• Coach: Help team members develop their own potential and ensure

accountability in others

• Business analyzer: Translate changes in the business environment and

opportunities for the organization

• Barrier buster: Open doors and run interference for the team

• Facilitator: Bring together necessary tools, information, and resources for the

team to get the job done

• Results catalyst: Help the team improve performance and achieve positive

results

Leadership is “mobilizing people to tackle tough problems” (Heifetz, 1994). It is also

“a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a

common goal …, [a] transactional event that occurs between the leader and his or

her followers” (Northouse, 2007). Both definitions of leadership use active verbs –

“mobilize” and “influence.” Leadership is not a set of traits; it is a way of doing.

Leadership is active and diverse, but also retains common elements across

companies.

According to Michael Fullan, true leadership contains the following five components:

Moral purpose – Doing good is good for business; leaders need to remember that

organizations are communities of humans.


Understanding change – Change involves both messiness and creative

breakthroughs. Leaders expect and know how to cope with both.

Relationship building – Leadership happens within a community where individuals

need to understand themselves through self-awareness and self-regulation, and

where they need to learn how to relate to others by understanding, motivation,

empathy, and social skills.

Knowledge creation and sharing – Information becomes knowledge only when it

takes on a “social life.” Creating and sharing knowledge involves storing it,

disseminating it, and infusing the embodiment of knowledge in products, services,

and systems.

Coherence making – In the end, a leader is the person who makes the best sense of

a complex situation, helping a team sort out what is happening, understand the

context of an issue, and move in a specific direction to solve a problem.

Susan E. Kogler Hill (2007), writing on team leadership, identifies three important

decisions that any leader must make:

1. Should I monitor the team or take action?

2. Should I intervene to meet task or relational needs?

3. Should I intervene internally or externally?

She then enumerates the factors that make any team effective:

• A clear, elevating goal

• A results-driven structure

• Competent team members

• Unified commitment

• A collaborative climate

• Standards of excellence

• External support and recognition


• Principled leadership

What is meant by “principled leadership”? Peter Northouse, in the same volume,

says ethical leaders “respect others,” “serve others, “are just,” “are honest,” and

“build community.” Of course, these qualities apply to all team leaders – not just

those in virtual teams. But virtual teams, in particular, must be careful to avoid poor

leadership because obvious problems could go unnoticed at a distance, leading to a

negative cycle. What it boils down to is that effective and principled leadership is

critical for all teams.


Creating Virtual Teams So, your company has decided to create a virtual team? Whatever your reasons – be

they to recruit the best talent, increase productivity, or simply test the waters – you

need to know where to begin. Duarte and Snyder (2007) suggest it takes six steps to

start a virtual team:

1. Identify team sponsors, stakeholders, and champions.

2. Develop a team charter that includes the team’s purpose, mission, and goals.

3. Select team members.

4. Contact team members.

5. Conduct a team orientation session that focuses on explaining the task,

discussing team norms, planning the technological aspects, planning how

communication will be achieved, and beginning teambuilding relationships.

6. Develop team processes, such as status mechanisms, review points, and

documentation.

Within those steps, additional actions and goals may pertain specifically to your

organization. In particular, establishing communication channels is important. David

Gould (2006) provides the following tips from his research on forming virtual teams:

• Hold an initial face-to-face start-up meeting.

• Hold periodic face-to-face meetings, especially to resolve conflict and

maintain team cohesiveness.

• Establish a clear code of conduct or set of norms and protocols for behavior.

• Recognize and reward performance.

• Use visuals in communications.

• Recognize that most communications are non-verbal, so team members

should use caution in tone and language.


Creating a virtual team is merely the first step in what is generally considered a five-

part process of group development (Lee-Kelley et al., 2004). These distinct stages

include the following:

Forming – The group is initially created, as discussed above.

Storming – As the group starts to jell and work together, a struggle often ensues to

sort out issues of power, influence, and position in the hierarchy.

Norming – The group settles down when a system of mutually acceptable rules is

implemented.

Performing – The team concentrates on the tasks for which it was formed.

Adjourning – This stage happens when the group winds down its work and disbands,

or when the composition of the group significantly changes, as members leave and

are replaced, necessitating a new “re-forming” stage.

Virtual teams may or may not go through all of these stages. The storming stage may

be absent, for example, if roles are already clearly laid out and if members don’t

have the same opportunity to “lock horns” that can occur in a face-to-face group. Yet,

developing trust is a critical issue in virtual teams, specifically due to the lack of cues

commonly used to make judgments about other group members. How are you going

to get along with this person? Will that person turn reports in on time? Does “John”

have my back if I’m called away on an emergency? These questions and others are

difficult to answer when you can’t stand nose-to-nose with another person, working

physically alongside them every day and viewing their facial expressions and work

habits. Trust needs to be earned, on both sides of any relationship. In a professional

setting, particularly a virtual one, how do team members learn to trust one another?


Facilitating Trust in Virtual Teams Developing trust among team members is critical for virtual teams to function at

optimal effectiveness. This trust comes with time, as members learn about each

other. In our virtual teams, conversations, meetings, and e-mails usually contain a lot

of humor, which is one sign of high levels of trust among team members.

Liz Lee-Kelley and her colleagues demonstrated that moving from one stage to the

next might depend on the number and frequency of face-to-face meetings. Such

physical encounters seem critical in developing trust in virtual teams. In a study

based on 12 case studies, Sirkka Jarvenpaa, professor of information systems at the

University of Texas at Austin, and Dorothy Leidner, associate professor of information

systems at INSEAD, a graduate business school in France, identified nine behaviors

that facilitated trust in teams. These trust building behaviors include the following:

Communication Behaviors That Facilitate Trust Early On

1. Communicating Socially

2. Conveying Enthusiasm in Communications

Member Actions That Facilitate Trust Early On

3. Coping with Technical and Task Uncertainty

4. Displaying Individual Initiative

Communication Behaviors That Maintain Trust Later On

5. Communicating Predictably

6. Providing Substantive and Timely Responses

Member Actions That Maintain Trust Later On

7. Displaying Leadership

8. Transitioning from Procedural to Task Focus

9. Reacting Calmly to Crises


These behaviors suggest that new virtual teams should provide opportunities to

interact socially right from the start, and should go the extra mile to resolve any early

technical difficulties or task confusion. Doing so will help new team members feel

more comfortable, leading to the other two early trust building attitudes: enthusiasm

and initiative. Over time, as a team progresses, additional trust building behaviors

can be added to expand the initial trust and to transition to a more mature virtual

team.


Managing Virtual Teams Leading and managing a virtual team can be more difficult than contending with a

face-to-face group. Obviously, one big problem with being in charge of a virtual team

is the difficulty understanding and managing what you cannot see. In a recent

Canadian study (Hambley et al., 2007), qualitative data were collected through

comprehensive interviews with nine virtual team leaders and members from six

different organizations. The most common challenge appears to involve solving

problems across multiple time zones. Study participants also believed poor leaders

lacked vision, strategy, and direction, and that poor leaders were unable to run

effective virtual team meetings or to “read” and “hear” cues from team members

while using virtual conferencing software.

Other issues involved with leading virtual teams include the following:

• Lack of facial and body language cues to validate team members

• Fear of isolation

• Changes in operating procedures

• Demand for higher individual accountability because delays resulting from

lack of preparedness are exacerbated and recovery takes longer (Wilson,

2003)

With so many potential issues, how can virtual leaders ensure success? What does it

take to lead and manage a virtual team? Joyce Thompsen (2000) argues it takes at

least the following five skills:

• Communicating effectively and using technology that fits the situation

• Building community, based on mutual trust, respect, fairness, and affiliation,

among project team members

• Establishing clear and inspiring shared goals, expectations, purpose, and

vision

• Leading by example with a focus on visible, measurable results


• Coordinating/collaborating across organizational boundaries

Because virtual leaders can use all the help they can get, the following are 17

“pointers” Kevin McMahan (2005) shares for managing a virtual team:

• Engage the team in setting expectations about behavior and performance.

Record the team’s decisions and commitments to each other.

• Clearly define member responsibilities.

• Use rigorous project management disciplines to ensure clarity.

• Consider servant leadership exposure and training for potential team leaders.

• Determine, as a team, how conflict will be addressed and resolved.

• Encourage proactive behavior, empathetic task communication, a positive

tone, rotating leadership, task goal clarity, role division, time management,

and frequent interaction with acknowledged and detailed responses to

previous messages.

• Strive for a good faith effort in complying with the team norms and

commitments, be honest in team negotiations, and don’t take advantage of

others or of the situation.

• Encourage social communication that accompanies completing tasks at the

outset, and be enthusiastic in e-mail dialog; look for predictable, substantial,

and timely responses to members.

• Provide more formal communication than in traditional same time/same

place teams.

• Keep communications in a shared database to use in new member

orientations.

• Focus knowledge management attention on the tacit as well as the explicit

knowledge. Document the tacit, and embed the process into the

organizational structure.


• Record and share the “context” when sharing information, preferably with a

view toward future audiences.

• Match desired activities with performance evaluation factors; reward the

desired performance.

• Build information sharing (knowledge management initiatives) into the

organization’s strategic plan.

• For a team crosscutting an organization’s departmental boundaries, develop

an information system to help translate terms in the subject disciplines.

• Encourage and provide feedback on all team activities; listen to feedback!

• Design and integrate tools that fit the team environment; don’t force the

team to adapt its behavior to the “latest” software.

Leadership also can be shared within a virtual team so that no one person actually

manages the functioning of the group. When no designated leader is assigned for a

group, we say the group has “shared leadership” or is “self-managed.” A longitudinal

study of virtual teams at three North American universities showed “high performing

self-managed virtual teams displayed significantly more leadership behaviors over

time compared to their low performing counterparts. Specifically, these teams

displayed significantly more concentrated leadership behavior focused on

performance (i.e., “producer” behavior) and shared leadership behavior focused on

keeping track of group work (i.e., “monitor” behavior) than the lower performing

teams” (Carte et al., 2006).

A study of 13 culturally diverse global virtual teams found that effective team leaders

“… demonstrate the capability to deal with paradox and contradiction by performing

multiple leadership roles simultaneously (Kayworth and Leidner, 2002). Specifically,

the study showed the following:

“… highly effective virtual team leaders act in a mentoring role and exhibit a

high degree of understanding (empathy) toward other team members. At the

same time, effective leaders are also able to assert their authority without


being perceived as overbearing or inflexible. Finally, effective leaders are

found to be extremely effective at providing regular, detailed, and prompt

communication with their peers and in articulating role relationships

(responsibilities) among the virtual team members.” (p. 7)

Much advice about leading virtual teams revolves around fostering positive and

respectful relationships among team members who hold each other accountable and

support each other through difficult situations. The same also holds true of

professional relationships in the onsite workplace, but virtual relationships face

unique challenges that take more work to maintain and nurture. But, if a virtual team

is right for your organization, the rewards can be worth the effort.


Part 3 – Research on the Effectiveness of Virtual Teams Do virtual teams work as effectively as face-to-face teams? That is an important

question to answer before investing time, energy, and money setting up and

managing a virtual team. The answer can be explored via empirical studies based on

both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Because no single one-size-fits-

all approach will be effective for every organization, both qualitative and quantitative

data are necessary to provide guidelines that can help you determine if a virtual

team might succeed in your company.

To help ensure effectiveness, general principles can be followed when managing

virtual teams, including the following suggestions:

• Clarifying team goals and team roles that do not conflict with commitments

to other work units

• Carefully implementing efficient communication and collaboration processes

that prevent misunderstandings and conflict escalation due to reduced

communication cues

• Continuously supporting team awareness, informal communication, and

sharing of socio-emotional cues, together with providing sufficient

performance feedback and information about the individual working

situation of each virtual team member

• Creating experiences of interdependence within the team to compensate for

feelings of disconnectedness, for instance, via goal setting, task design, or

team-based incentives

• Developing appropriate kick-off workshops and team training concepts to

prepare and support the team for the specific challenges of virtual teamwork.

(Hertel, 2005)

A study by Horwitz, et al. (2006) indicated that improving cross-cultural

communication, improving managerial and leadership communication, clarifying

goals and roles, and building relationships are the most important factors affecting


virtual team performance. Perhaps the most important factor in the success of

virtual teams is the opportunity to occasionally meet face-to-face, because

relationships are so critical. One research study concludes that “… wholly virtual

teams might not meet organizational expectations and achieve the same levels of

performance and success as those that, whilst being geographically dispersed, are

able to meet at critical times” (Lee-Kelley et al., 2004). It seems that virtual teams

need face-to-face meetings for members to get to know each other and to develop

trust. “The virtual teamworking technologies alone may have limited scope in

contributing to reproduction and reinforcement of commitment and personal trust

relationships” (Nandhakumar and Baskerville, 2006).

Dispersed workers often experience isolation and other challenges that can impede

effective functioning. They need a “human touch.” A recent study found that many

virtual teams need special leadership, that trust is essential, that teambuilding

exercises pay off, and that, unless a combination of high-tech and high-touch is

maintained, performance peaks are often followed by declines in the productivity

(Hawkrigg, 2007). Again, relationships matter in the workplace. People need to feel

connected to each other.

At the same time, virtual teams can be over managed. Essentially, virtual teams

need to be self-directed by highly motivated individuals who can mostly work on their

own. Best practices for virtual team members include “… supporting other team

members, communicating effectively, and having a variety of specific skills.

Interviewees sought a respectful team environment where members weren’t afraid

to openly discuss ideas, where people could be reached, and where team members

responded appropriately to requests for help. Effective communication involved

transferring ideas, sharing information, listening to and internalizing the ideas of

others, and notifying team members of any problems or issues” (Staples and

Webster, 2007). However, “… even though many SMWTs [self-managed work teams]

are largely self-managed, external leadership may be fundamental to the

performance of these teams … successful external managers provided clear

objectives, established a climate of mutual trust by emphasizing the development of


strong relationships with team members, and did not engage in micromanagement

of the team” (DeRosa et al., 2004),

How do virtual teams process information? This question may shed some light on

whether a team is effective or ineffective. Information and communications

technologies affect information processing in virtual teams in two ways. First, the

communication technology impacts the pool of knowledge and its use in virtual

teams. Second, virtual communication has “an indirect effect on the way teams

process information because the communication environment influences team

processes, the emergence of trust and cohesion, and information processing

capabilities” (Curseu, 2008). A 2006 study of a collaborative project between two

international business communication classes at U.S. and German universities

compared a number of online communication channels (e-mail, discussion boards,

online chats), evaluated each channel’s effectiveness for virtual teamwork, and

reflected upon the various aspects of the learning process (Gareis, 2006). This study

determined that U.S. students preferred e-mail as a forum for professional

communication, while German students preferred discussion boards.

This same study uncovered one major benefit to online communication vs. face-to-

face communication: “Online written communication promoted equal participation of

group members,” an equalizing effect that “is not only beneficial for shy students, but

also for non-native speakers of English who may have trouble responding quickly in

spoken conversation or who may be worried about their accents. … A related finding

is that asynchronous communication seems to have a positive effect on language

accuracy and its mitigating intercultural miscommunication. …”

We can see that the tools used in virtual teams do benefit team members, indirectly

supporting the effectiveness of a virtual team. However, these online tools benefit

onsite and virtual teams alike. The point is not necessarily which online

communication medium is best but how communication, overall, is used effectively

in virtual teams. That effectiveness comes back to how a team is managed.


Summary: Success Factors for Managing Virtual Teams In the end, most of the recommendations for successfully managing virtual teams

are fairly similar. Our research highlighted three sets of recommendations.

Combined, they cover most of the major points on how to lead and manage a virtual

team.

Melymuka (1997) suggests that the following factors are present in successful virtual

teams:

• Providing a supportive corporate culture

• Hiring the right people

• Addressing time considerations

• Communicating emotions

• Properly using synchronous and asynchronous modes of communication

• Using appropriate software tools

• Ensuring comfort with using technology

• Putting a limit on the number of team memberships for each person

• Providing network and system support

• Addressing sensitivity to cultural differences in communications

Compare these points to Staples and Webster’s (2007) list of “organizational best

practice items” for virtual teams:

• Teams are provided with adequate resources (e.g., funding, people, and skill

variety) to meet their objectives.

• The information technology (IT) needs (equipment, financial support, and

training) of teams are well supported.

• People are recognized for their contributions and are fairly rewarded.


• The company provides adequate electronic communication skills training for

the team.

• The company provides adequate team skills training (e.g., communication,

organization, interpersonal, etc.) for the team.

• The company provides adequate technical training for the team.

• The company provides adequate customer service training for the team.

• The company provides adequate remote coordination skills training for the

team.

In summary, the TechRepublic.com Web site (Mochal, 2007) provides 10 tips for

managing virtual teams:

• Establish team objectives.

• Remind everyone they are a team.

• Establish ground rules.

• Obtain the right technology.

• Look for opportunities to socialize.

• Be sensitive to cultural differences.

• Communicate.

• Adjust and compromise on time differences.

• Be extra diligent in managing workload.

• Give people shorter assignments.

In the end, you need to select the suggestions that best apply to your individual

situation. You also must remain open to change if one method doesn’t work or if a

new technology aims to provide a greater benefit. As the recommendations show,

commitment and accountability tempered with flexibility and communication are

critical factors in helping any virtual team succeed. Moreover, the effectiveness of a


virtual team always depends on the effectiveness of the interpersonal relationships

among its members.


Part 4 - Technology for Supporting Virtual Teams Part of the shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 has been the change in emphasis from

individual learning to team-based collaborative learning. This represents a

fundamental shift in how learning occurs, as we move from a model of instructor-led

teaching of individuals to one of learner-led finding, doing, and collaborating in small

groups.

Working in teams is one of many different ways to collaborate. Timothy Butler and

David Coleman (2003) suggest five fundamental models of working together:

• Library (a few people place material in a repository, many draw on it)

• Solicitation (a few people place requests, many respond, e.g., a Request for

Proposal [RFP] system)

• Teams (small groups work together on projects)

• Community (e.g., a community of practice)

• Process support (systems that support repetitive workflows)

All five of these methods can be used in a virtual world setting that is purpose-built

for working together. All five of these methods also require technology appropriate to

the purpose of that method. Hundreds of vendors produce and sell products that

allow teams to work together online. These technology products can be divided into

the following categories:

• Web collaborative software

• Project and team management software

• Conferencing and meeting software

The following is a list of the best known tools in each of the above categories:


Web Collaborative Software This software group includes online collaborative working environments, group

document sharing and management tools, calendars and scheduling software, task

management software, and computer-supported collaborative learning

environments. The following list highlights some of the best known software

currently being used in corporate environments.

Annotea – This is a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) LEAD (Live Early Adoption

and Demonstration) project under Semantic Web Advanced Development (SWAD).

Annotea enhances collaboration via shared metadata-based Web annotations,

bookmarks, and their combinations.

http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea

aveComm – This technology adds to a software/hardware application or product with

Web-based video, voice and data collaboration, and communication.

http://www.avecomm.com

Backpack – An organizational tool that enables collaboration with others, this Web-

based service lets users make to-do lists, jot down notes, share files, and upload

photos. Users can share Backpack pages with others by e-mailing the page address

to the other person. It also provides Short Message Service (SMS)/text message

reminders.

http://www.backpackit.com

Bright Idea – These software products assist managers in all areas of innovation,

with templates and workflows for product development, intellectual property

management, expert location, and information technology adoption.

http://www.brightidea.com

CentralDesktop – This Web-based collaboration tool helps business teams manage

projects, share information, and communicate with others. It includes document

organization and sharing, document versioning, and searchable discussion threads.


http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea

http://www.avecomm.com/

http://www.backpackit.com/

http://www.brightidea.com/

http://www.centraldesktop.com

Confluence – Confluence is an enterprise wiki that hosts online workspaces where

team members can hold discussions, develop ideas, create documents, share

knowledge, post blogs and meeting notes, and even maintain a team calendar.

http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/solutions/collaboration.jsp

Croquet – This combination of open source computer software and network

architecture supports deep collaboration and resource sharing among large numbers

of users. It features a network architecture that supports communication,

collaboration, resource sharing, and synchronous computation among multiple

users. Using Croquet, software developers can create powerful and highly

collaborative multi-user 2-D and 3-D applications and simulations.

http://www.opencroquet.org

DabbleBoard – DabbleBoard is an online whiteboard specifically designed to

facilitate collaboration. Users can draw freehand or with prebuilt objects.

http://www.dabbleboard.com

Digité Enterprise – This tool offers real-time collaboration through Web access,

instant messaging, discussion forum, alerts, flexible workflow, robust document

management, and a meeting manager.

http://www.digite.com

Engineering.com Collaboration Suite – This collaboration suite, designed for

engineers, features a project navigator; resource information sharing; mechanical

CAD Viewer to compress and send CAD files over Internet; desktop sharing and

remote desktop control, recording, and playback; and document management.

http://collaboration.engineering.com

eRoom – This Web-based collaborative workspace enables distributed teams to work

together more efficiently. Features include the following: instant messaging; project

planning and reporting; search; version control; office, desktop, and e-mail


http://www.centraldesktop.com/

http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/solutions/collaboration.jsp

http://www.opencroquet.org/

http://www.dabbleboard.com/

http://www.digite.com/

http://collaboration.engineering.com/

integration (Microsoft Office and Outlook); and integration with SharePoint and BEA

WebLobic.

http://www.emc.com/products/family/eroom-family.htm

Exact Software e-Synergy – The e-Synergy platform integrates and consolidates

corporate data into a single database, allowing all members of the value chain to

view and modify information based on their access and roles within the system.

Features include the following: accessing documents, scheduling and using

calendars, tracking the status of assignments, and sending workflow tasks.

http://www.exactamerica.com/esynergy

Flypaper – This simple, easy-to-use, online collaboration system contains content

management and a dashboard. The company also has the Flypaper Enterprise

Collaboration Platform.

http://www.flypaper.com

Gliffy – This tool provides the ability to do diagramming in a Web browser, with

collaborators able to add to and change the diagrams.

http://www.gliffy.com

Google Apps – Google Docs, Google Video, and Google Sites complement traditional

office software to make teamwork easier. Companies or departments can use these

apps on their own to be more productive, an example of the new “cloud computing”

or “Software as a Service” (SaaS) model of collaborative computing.

http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/index.html

Gordano Groupware and Collaboration Server – GMS Collaboration Server provides a

fully functional cross-platform alternative to Microsoft Exchange.

http://www.gordano.com/products/Collaboration.htm

hotComm – This peer-to-peer collaboration platform is designed to leverage the

1stWorks Network, a powerful, scalable, and secure peer networking architecture.

hotComm is the desktop client that provides fast, efficient, private interactive access


http://www.emc.com/products/family/eroom-family.htm

http://www.exactamerica.com/esynergy

http://www.flypaper.com/

http://www.gliffy.com/

http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/index.html

http://www.gordano.com/products/Collaboration.htm

or exchange of text, voice, video, data, and applications between participating

hotComm users on the Web.

http://www.hotcomm.com/hotComm.asp

HyperOffice Collaboration Suite – The features of this hosted collaboration solution

include the following: business e-mail, online document management, online

calendar, online contact management, task manager, and shared documents.

http://www.hyperoffice.com

IBM Lotus QuickPlace - A Web-based solution for creating team workspaces for

collaboration. IBM also is a pioneer in using virtual worlds for team collaboration and

training.

http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/i/software/quickr

http://www.ibm.com/virtualworlds/innovationinvirtualworld.shtml

IceMAIL – Features of this enterprise class e-mail and collaboration system for small

businesses include the following: shared calendars, contacts, folders, and Microsoft

Outlook integration.

http://www.icewebonline.com/icemail_home.asp

In-team – This company offers tools and modules to support teams in a variety of

environments. Its virtual “meeting room” can be embedded in existing infrastructures

and customized in terms of look-and-feel.

http://www.inteam.com/info

Interwoven WorkSite – This document management and team collaboration

software stores all project-related documents; integrates with Microsoft Office,

Microsoft Outlook, and Lotus Notes; and provides search, versioning control, and

extensibility.

http://www.interwoven.com/components/pagenext.jsp?topic=PRODUCT::WORKSITE


http://www.hotcomm.com/hotComm.asp

http://www.hyperoffice.com/

http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/i/software/quickr

http://www.ibm.com/virtualworlds/innovationinvirtualworld.shtml

http://www.icewebonline.com/icemail_home.asp

http://www.inteam.com/info

http://www.interwoven.com/components/pagenext.jsp?topic=PRODUCT::WORKSITE

JDH Web-4M – This collaboration suite for business or training/education is an

integrated suite of multiuser, peer-to-peer, and groupware tools for synchronous

course delivery and instructor/student interaction.

http://www.jdhtech.com

Mayetic Collaborative Workspaces – Functions of this teamwork collaboration tool

include the following: share documents, calendars, Web resources, and photos. Using

Mayetic collaborative workspaces, any workgroup belonging to an internal or

external organization can publish and share information and documents in a

collaborative, structured, and secured fashion – for up to 399 users.

http://www.oodrive.fr/index.php?menu=our-solutions&submenu=collaborative-

intranet

Microsoft SharePoint – Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 is an integrated

portfolio of collaboration and communication services designed to connect people,

information, processes, and systems both within and beyond the organizational

firewall.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-ca/windowsserver/sharepoint/default.aspx

Near-Time – Near-Time integrates a group Weblog with wiki pages, team events, and

shared files in a hosted and secure collaborative environment. Create a Near-Time

space to share ideas, resources, and files; author and review pages individually and

across the group; schedule and track events and activities; organize and discover

content through categories and tags; and publish and broadcast your content to the

Web.

http://www.near-time.com

NexPrise Collaboration – This tool centralizes all project-related documents, files,

and data into a single storage area where project members can quickly locate and

retrieve the most current and accurate information. Proactive features, such as

subscriptions, notifications, and calendar events, keep users abreast of any

developments requiring attention. Users can store information, and control where it

goes and who can access it.


http://www.jdhtech.com/

http://www.oodrive.fr/index.php?menu=our-solutions&submenu=collaborative-intranet

http://www.oodrive.fr/index.php?menu=our-solutions&submenu=collaborative-intranet

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-ca/windowsserver/sharepoint/default.aspx

http://www.near-time.com/

http://www.nexprise.com

Novell Groupwise – Novell GroupWise is a complete collaboration software solution

that provides information workers with e-mail, calendaring, instant messaging, task

management, and contact and document management functions.

http://www.novell.com/products/groupwise

Open Text – Open Text provides Enterprise Content Management (ECM) solutions

that support collaboration and document management combined together. It allows

managers to tightly control the project lifecycle by monitoring due dates, milestones,

tasks, and priorities and by receiving on-the-spot status reports.

http://www.opentext.com

Oracle Beehive – Oracle Beehive provides the tools an enterprise needs to

seamlessly collaborate from within any application or device. It enables individuals,

teams, and entire organizations to detect a presence and collaborate instantly.

http://www.oracle.com/products/middleware/beehive/index.html

Projectforum – This Web-based collaboration software is easy to set up and use. It is

a wiki that lets you share, discuss, and review ideas, documents, schedules, and

status — online, privately, and securely.

http://www.courseforum.com

ProjectSpaces – ProjectSpaces is a password-protected, Web-based extranet tool. It

provides working groups — committees, project teams, partners, members, and

others — with simple, powerful, secure, and reliable tools for collaborating more

effectively across organizational and geographic boundaries. ProjectSpaces offers

powerful tools for managing multiple teams.

http://www.forumone.com/section/services/projectspaces

Ramius Community Zero – CommunityZero is an interactive Web site that allows a

group of people to communicate and exchange information over the Internet in their

own private and secure area. Within each area, called an online community,


http://www.nexprise.com/

http://www.novell.com/products/groupwise/overview.html



http://www.novell.com/products/groupwise

http://www.opentext.com/

http://www.oracle.com/products/middleware/beehive/index.html

http://www.courseforum.com/

http://www.forumone.com/section/services/projectspaces

participants are provided access to a suite of powerful tools that enable a group to

effectively get organized, share knowledge, and communicate.

http://www.ramius.net/welcome.cfm

Same-Page eStudio – eStudio is a hybrid solution that offers more than 30 software

features needed for effective collaboration. eStudio does not require an IT

department to maintain it. The eStudio administrator tightly controls user access.

Staff members can access the components they require to work effectively, while

customers view only the data that is relevant to their company interaction.

http://www.same-page.com

SiteScape – Recently acquired by Novell, SiteScape is collaboration software that

includes document management, threaded discussions, calendar sharing, search,

workflow and task management, and real-time communications such as presence

confirmation, voice and Web conferencing, Web-based whiteboarding, and instant

messaging.

http://www.novell.com/promo/sitescape.html

Swirrl – Swirrl is an easy-to-use Web application that helps organizations capture,

share, and exploit their knowledge.

http://www.swirrl.com

Teamspace – Teamspace is a groupware system for international Web-based

collaboration and virtual teamwork. The idea with this software is to “create your own

team and work together with colleagues all over the world.”

http://www.teamspace.com

Teamware Office – Teamware Office is a set of groupware applications that provides

users with an easy way of carrying out office tasks and communicating with each

other. Teamware Office includes facilities for using e-mail; scheduling time and

resources; having discussions; managing and retrieving documents; and finding,

viewing, analyzing, and acting on information in a user-friendly and timely way. The

facilities are designed to meet the needs of users, whether they are individuals in


http://www.ramius.net/welcome.cfm

http://www.same-page.com/

http://www.novell.com/promo/sitescape.html

http://www.swirrl.com/

http://www.teamspace.com/

local or remote offices, members of a team within an enterprise, or an external

business partner.

http://www.teamware.net/Resource.phx/teamware/index.htx

TeamWork Live – TeamWork Live is an intuitive, secure, Web-based project

management and collaboration tool. TeamWork Live is hosted, so there is no

software to install or support. Use TeamWork Live to manage projects, track tasks,

centralize communication, share documents and files, and collaborate with clients

and remote teams.

http://www.teamworklive.com

Trichys WorkZone – WorkZone is the easy-to-use extranet for organizing and sharing

work with clients, project teams, and business partners. Designed specifically for the

non-technical user, WorkZone can be accessed from any Web-enabled computer

(Mac or PC) and requires no additional hardware or software.

http://www.trichys.com

WebCrossing Core – WebCrossing Core is a collaboration server engine. Beyond built-

in basic message board functionality, it includes the following fully functional

Internet protocols: multi-domain Web server, newsgroup server, e-mail server, chat

server, XML-RPC server, FTP server, and more.

http://www.webcrossing.com/Home/products.htm

WebAsyst Suite – WebAsyst is a suite of Web-based software applications, a simple

and powerful solution for group online collaboration. WebAsyst enables users to

implement customer, project, and document management in a Web browser without

downloading additional software.

http://www.webasyst.net

Zoho Virtual Office – This groupware provides a virtual collaboration platform where

individuals and groups can communicate, collaborate, organize, and share

information seamlessly using a number of useful applications such as e-mail client,


http://www.teamware.net/Resource.phx/teamware/index.htx

http://www.teamworklive.com/

http://www.trichys.com/

http://www.webcrossing.com/Home/products.htm

http://www.webasyst.net/

virtual storage for documents, personal and group calendar, task scheduler, contacts

manager, instant messaging, discussions board, etc.

http://www.zoho.com/virtual-office/index.html?ad-main

Project and Team Management Software This category of software is used for managing complex team projects, including

keeping track of the work of each team member. This type of software also is used

to produce progress reports for the team and for managers.

Ace Project – This intuitive project management software for work teams works with

Microsoft Project, and can be hosted or installed on your intranet.

http://www.aceproject.com

activeCollab – activeCollab is a project management and collaboration tool that you

can set up on your own Web site. Have an area where you can collaborate with your

team, clients, and contractors, and keep projects on track while retaining full control

over access permissions and your data.

http://www.activecollab.com

Acunote – Acunote is an Agile project management tool that integrates with a

number of other software development management tools, such as Subversion,

Perforce, Bugzilla, Mantis, Trac, JIRA, and FogBugz.

http://www.acunote.com

Basecamp – Basecamp tackles project management from an entirely different

angle, focusing on communication and collaboration.

http://www.basecamphq.com

ManagePro – ManagePro combines project management, task management, and

performance management tools into a single application.


http://www.zoho.com/virtual-office/index.html?ad-main

http://www.aceproject.com/

http://www.activecollab.com/

http://www.acunote.com/

http://www.basecamphq.com/

http://www.managepro.com

myonProject – myonProject is an online team collaboration and project

management solution that offers practical, affordable, online management for

projects of any size and scope.

http://www.onproject.com

OPMCreator – This instant-to-set-up, simple, scalable, pay-as-you-go Web-based

project management software is ideal for small- to medium-sized businesses looking

for a simple but effective method to manage their projects online. Share multiple

projects with multiple users, set user permissions, assign tasks, and share

documents, calendars, discussions, feedback, and e-mails.

http://www.opmcreator.com

ProjectDox – This easy-to-use database neatly stores and organizes project files,

giving all team members constant online access to needed information.

http://www.projectdox.com

Project/Open – This integrated open-source Web-based project management and

PSA (Professional Services Automation) software is designed for consulting

companies and IT departments with between two and 200 employees. The

application helps a company run its business by taking care of everything from CRM,

project planning, project tracking, and collaboration to timesheet management,

invoicing, and payments.

http://www.project-open.com

PeopleCube – PeopleCube includes Web event calendaring, scheduling solutions,

facility management, and human performance management applications.

http://www.peoplecube.com

QuickBase – QuickBase applications make tracking, updating, and sharing

information easy and also works as customer relationship management (CRM)

software.


http://www.managepro.com/

http://www.onproject.com/

http://www.opmcreator.com/

http://www.projectdox.com/

http://www.project-open.com/

http://www.peoplecube.com/

http://quickbase.intuit.com/home/video

TeamDynamix TDNEXT V4.0Project Suite – TeamDynamix TDNext 4.0 is the latest

edition of the acclaimed project management and project collaboration server.

TDNext focuses on helping managers and project team members work more

effectively. Project managers have all the tools necessary to monitor team progress,

identify and resolve potential problems, and communicate with their project teams.

Project team members have instant access to all project information that is relevant

to their work, and the system tells them exactly where they should focus their time

every day.

http://www.teamdynamix.com/CollaborationProducts/Products.aspx


http://quickbase.intuit.com/home/video

http://www.teamdynamix.com/CollaborationProducts/Products.aspx

Conferencing and Meeting Software Conferencing software mainly focuses on live communications among members of a

virtual team. The software may be a suite of applications that include a whiteboard,

voice over IP (VoIP) capabilities, text chat, and the display of slides or it may be a

solution containing only one or two of these features.

Adobe Connect – Securely share presentations and multimedia right from your

desktop, and get feedback from hundreds of participants — all using a Web browser

and Adobe Flash.

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatconnectpro

AT&T Connect – AT&T Connect delivers unlimited voice, Web, and videoconferencing.

Share and collaborate on any application or document in real time. Lead or attend

virtual classes with full moderator control and participant interaction features.

Record classes and live Webcasts.

http://www.interwise.com/att_connect.html

Bantu Messenger – Bantu is a powerful communication and collaboration platform.

Bantu’s secure Instant Messaging (real-time text communication), Presence (see

who’s online), and Alerts (time-sensitive notifications) servers offer rich

communications features.

http://www.bantu.com/services/faq_basics.php

BridgePoint – Combining audio and Web conferencing components, BridgePoint

allows companies to meet virtually anywhere to accomplish their goals. With the

convenience of online access through an individual account, BridgePoint users can

establish conferences at a second’s notice from an Internet connection.

http://www.telnetz.com/bridgepoint.asp

BudgetConferencing – This tool is a low-cost audio and Web conferencing system

that can enable operator assisted conference calls or full-time operator support.

http://www.budgetconferencing.com


http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatconnectpro

http://www.interwise.com/att_connect.html

http://www.bantu.com/services/faq_basics.php

http://www.telnetz.com/bridgepoint.asp

http://www.budgetconferencing.com/

Campfire – This is a simple-to-use instant messaging software for businesses.

http://campfirenow.com

Cisco Unified MeetingPlace – An integral component of the Cisco IP Communications

system, Cisco MeetingPlace is a complete rich-media conferencing solution that

seamlessly integrates voice, video, and Web conferencing capabilities.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/ps5664/ps5669/index.html

Communique – This tool enables audio conferencing with PowerSlides, video

conferencing, and Internet conferencing with Microsoft LiveMeeting, WebEx, and

Raindance.

http://www.communiqueconferencing.com/internet_conferencing.asp

Elluminate Live! – This real-time virtual classroom environment is designed for

distance education and collaboration in academic institutions and corporations.

http://www.elluminate.com

eZmeeting – Features of this live meeting and Web conferencing tool include the

following: interactive data collaboration; universal file viewer (to view, share, and

mark up Microsoft Office documents); drawing tools; presentation tools, including

whiteboards, snapshots, and images; an interactive whiteboard; desktop sharing;

and corporate instant messaging.

http://www.ezmeeting.com

Facilitate – This solution supports online meetings and collaboration with a set of

tools for brainstorming, categorizing, voting, conducting surveys, and creating action

plans.

http://www.facilitate.com

Genesys Meeting Center – This center features audio, video, and Web conferencing

specialists.

http://www.genesys.com


http://campfirenow.com/

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/ps5664/ps5669/index.html

http://www.communiqueconferencing.com/internet_conferencing.asp

http://www.elluminate.com/

http://www.ezmeeting.com/

http://www.facilitate.com/

http://www.genesys.com/

Glance Corporate – Glance is a simple, quick desktop sharing tool for hosting live

Web demos, sales presentations, and more. Features include the following: shared

documents, e-mail invites, instant messaging, session reports, and phone use.

http://www.glance.net/site/getglance/examples.asp

GoToMeeting – With this online meeting solution for sharing desktop resources, Web

conferencing, and collaboration, you can host or attend an online meeting within

seconds.

https://www.gotomeeting.com

Halo Video Collaboration Service – This system of carefully placed plasma

televisions, cameras, and microphones allows two groups of up to six people to hold

a live meeting in two separate locations. Conceived by Dreamworks as a response to

travel concerns after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Halo allows meeting

participants to make eye contact, share files and documents, and shout over each

other in an attempt to be heard — just like a real meeting.

http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/us/en/halo/index.html

IntraLinks On-Demand Workspaces – In this secure, virtual environment, business

communities can exchange high-value information across enterprise boundaries.

Real-time reporting shows which information has been accessed, how often, and by

whom.

http://www.intralinks.com

iVocalize Web Conference – This tool enables interactive Web conference meetings,

online seminars, e-learning classrooms, and presentations to audiences spanning

the globe. It is also multilingual.

http://www.ivocalize.com

Linktivity Inter-Tel – These voice and data communications solutions and

collaboration applications include Web conferencing with the following features:

multipoint videoconferencing, desktop sharing, pre-recorded broadcasts, polling and

quizzes, record and playback, live demos, annotations, notes, broadcasts files,


http://www.glance.net/site/getglance/examples.asp

https://www.gotomeeting.com/

http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/us/en/halo/index.html

http://www.intralinks.com/

http://www.ivocalize.com/

keyboard and voice chat, transparency tools, attendee lists, hand raising, remote

control, and a change presenter ability.

http://www.linktivity.com

MeetingOne – MeetingOne is a full service audio and Web conferencing provider that

focuses on event solutions. This powerful, easy-to-use Web conferencing solution

allows users to share and present any printable document, any application, or an

entire desktop.

http://www.meetingone.com/us

PGi Netspoke – PGi Netspoke provides Web and audio conferencing services.

http://www.premiereglobal.com/conferencing/web-conferencing/netspoke

Radvision – These desktop videoconferencing products and components deliver real-

time interactive communications to manage dispersed organizations, for a more

powerful, more agile, and faster communications infrastructure.

http://www.radvision.com

Q2Learning eCampus and eCommunity – Rapidly develop blended learning programs

that weave together e-learning courses with simultaneous Web meetings, threaded

discussions, and coached e-assignments; and integrate the activities of learners,

coaches, and managers. Provide pictures of team members, feature stories, a

featured person, names of people logged in, and discussion rooms of various levels

of exclusivity.

http://www.q2learning.com

Saba Centra – This online learning environment combines a highly interactive virtual

classroom learning, e-meeting, and Web seminar platform to enable e-learning and

collaborative Web conferencing across the globe.

http://www.saba.com/centra-saba

Skype – Make free calls over the Internet, or set up a video link between two people.

Use the instant messaging function with or without voice communications.


http://www.linktivity.com/

http://www.meetingone.com/us

http://www.premiereglobal.com/conferencing/web-conferencing/netspoke

http://www.radvision.com/

http://www.q2learning.com/

http://www.saba.com/centra-saba

http://www.skype.com

Socialcast – Communicate and share information any time, anywhere. It works with

mobile devices.

http://www.socialcast.com

SpiderWeb Communications – These Web-based solutions enable face-to-face

interaction with remote employees, partners, and prospects — all without leaving

their desks. It includes VoIP, live video, application sharing, and breakout groups.

http://www.spiderwebcommunications.com/index.asp

Voxwire – This unlimited computer-to-computer Web conferencing application allows

people to talk to each other, send text messages, and see the same Web site or

other presentation on their screens — from anywhere in the world. It can be used for

private communication or with large groups of participants.

http://www.voxwire.com

Vyew – This platform enables real-time and always-on interaction between people

and content.

http://vyew.com/site

WebEx Meeting Center – WebEx powers online meetings, Web conferencing,

teleconferencing, conference calling, and videoconferencing services created for

today’s enterprise. WebEx services offer the right solution, whether for an individual,

a small business, or a large business. Solutions include Web meetings, Webinars, e-

learning, remote support, and system management. This tool requires only a browser

and a phone.

http://www.webex.com

WebTrain – This includes Web conferencing and collaboration solutions and a virtual

classroom. Present courseware in a synchronous online environment, set up labs and

conduct quizzes, present PowerPoint slideshows, share other applications, tour Web

sites, show rich multimedia content and documents, and provide effective distance

education at a fraction of the cost of traditional classroom courses. Training can be


http://www.skype.com/

http://www.socialcast.com/

http://www.spiderwebcommunications.com/index.asp

http://www.voxwire.com/

http://vyew.com/site

http://www.webex.com/solutions/online-meeting-svc.html

http://www.webex.com/overview/web-conferencing.html

http://www.webex.com/solutions/audio-conference.html

http://www.webex.com/overview/video-conferencing.html

http://www.webex.com/solutions/online-meeting-svc.html

http://www.webex.com/solutions/online-events.html

http://www.webex.com/solutions/e-learning-svc.html

http://www.webex.com/solutions/e-learning-svc.html

http://www.webex.com/solutions/online-support-svc.html

http://www.webex.com/solutions/system-management.html

http://www.webex.com/

conducted in multiple simultaneous languages in the same training session, course,

or meeting.

http://www.webtrain.com

Wimba Collaboration Suite – This full-featured, live virtual classroom supports audio,

video, application sharing, and content display. It enables users to hold live, online

classes, office hours, guest lectures, Webcasts, and meetings.

http://www.horizonwimba.com

WiZiQ – This virtual classroom tool provides good VoIP and some additional features

to rival the big vendors, including a full-featured whiteboard.

http://www.wiziq.com

At the end of the day, support for virtual teams is mostly about overcoming three

kinds of distance — physical, operational, and social. Physical distance refers to the

geographical and time zone differences that can be overcome through the right

combination of electronic technologies; operational distance is the barriers within an

organization due to different job functions; and social distance is the result of

cultural barriers and prejudices. The latter two are harder to solve with technology

alone. All three require the effective leadership and management of virtual teams.


http://www.webtrain.com/

http://www.horizonwimba.com/

http://www.wiziq.com/

References Baker, Edward (2007). When Teams Fail: The virtual distance challenge.

Strategy+Business, May 22.

Beyerlein, M., Nemiro, J. and Beyerlein, S. (2008). A framework for working across

boundaries. In Jill Nemiro, Michael Beyerlein, Lori Bradley, and Susan Beyerlein

(Eds.). The Handbook of High Performance Virtual Teams: A toolkit for collaborating

across boundaries. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 31-58.

Brown, M.K., Huettner, B., and James-Tanny, C. (2007). Managing Virtual Teams:

Getting the most from wikis, blogs, and other collaborative tools. Plano, Texas:

Wordware.

Carte, T., Chidanbaram, L., and Becker, A. (2006). Emergent Leadership in Self-

Managed Virtual Teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 323-343.

Cascio, W. F., and Shurygailo, S. (2003). E-Leadership and Virtual Teams.

Organizational Dynamics, 31, 362–376.

Child, J. and Shumate, M. (2007). The Impact of Communal Knowledge Repositories

and People-Based Knowledge Management on Perceptions of Team Effectiveness.

Management Communication Quarterly, 21(1), August 1, 29-54.

DeRosa, D., Hantula, D., Kock, N. and D’Arcy, J. (2004). Trust and Leadership in

Virtual Teamwork: A Media Naturalness Perspective. Human Resource Management,

43(2/3), Summer/Fall, 219-232.

Duarte, D. and Snyder, N. (2007). Mastering Virtual Teams: Strategies, Tools, and

Techniques That Succeed. Third edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Virtual-Teams-Strategies-

Techniques/dp/0787982806

Connaughton, S. and Shuffler, M. (2007). Multinational and Multicultural Distributed

Teams: A Review and Future Agenda. Small Group Research, 38(3), 387-412.


http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Virtual-Teams-Strategies-Techniques/dp/0787982806

http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Virtual-Teams-Strategies-Techniques/dp/0787982806

Geisler, Barbara (2002). Virtual Teams. Online Paper. Organizational Issues and

Insights, NewFoundations.

http://www.newfoundations.com/OrgTheory/Geisler721.html

Gould, David (1997). Leadership in virtual teams. Doctoral dissertation, Seattle

University.

Gould, David (2006). Leading Virtual Teams. Online paper, Fifth Generation Work –

Virtual Organization.

http://www.seanet.com/~daveg/vrteams.htm#Introduction

Hambley, L., O’Neill, T. and Kline, T. (2007). Virtual Team Leadership: Perspectives

from the Field. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 3(1), 40-64.

Helms, M. and Raiszadeh, F. (2002). Virtual offices: Understanding and managing

what you cannot see. Work Study, 51(4/5), 240-247.

Horwitz, F., Bravington, D. and Silvis, U. (2006). The promise of virtual teams:

Identifying key factors in effectiveness and failure. Journal of European Industrial

Training, 30(6), 472-494.

Jarvenpaa, S. and Leidner, D. (1998). Communication and Trust in Global Virtual

Teams. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 3(4), June.

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue4/jarvenpaa.html

Kayworth, T. and Leidner, D. (2001/2002). Leadership Effectiveness in Global Virtual

Teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), Winter, 7-40.

Kimball, Lisa (1997). Managing Virtual Teams. Presentation at the Team Strategies

Conference, Toronto, Canada.

Kirkman, B. and Mathieu, J. (2004). The role of virtuality in work team effectiveness.

Paper presented at the Academy of Management annual meeting, Louisiana, August

6 -- 11, 2004.

Kirkman, B. and Mathieu, J. (2005). The Dimensions and Antecedents of Team

Virtuality. Journal of Management, 31(5), 700-718.


http://www.newfoundations.com/OrgTheory/Geisler721.html

http://www.seanet.com/~daveg/vrteams.htm#Introduction

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue4/jarvenpaa.html

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/5/700

Lee-Kelley, L., Crossman, A. and Cannings, A. (2004). A social interaction approach to

managing the “invisibles” of virtual teams. Industrial Management + Data Systems,

104(8/9), 650-657.

Lin, C., Standing, C., and Liu, Y. (2008). A model to develop effective virtual teams.

Decision Support Systems, 45(4), 1031-1045.

Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time, and

Organizations with Technology. New York: John Wiley.

Malhotra, A. (2003). Far-flung virtual teams: pitfalls and best practices. Presentation

notes, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.,

pp. 2-3.

Malhotra, A. and Majchrzak, A. (2004). Enabling knowledge creation in far flung

teams: Best practices for IT support and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 8(4), 75-88.

Malhotra, A. and Majchrzak, A. (2005). Virtual Workspace Technologies. MIT Sloan

Management Review, 46(2), Winter.

Mathieu, J., Maynard, M., Rapp, T. and Gilson, L. (2008). Team Effectiveness 1997-

2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse into the Future. Journal of

Management, 34(3), June 1, 2008, 410 - 476.

McMahan, Kevin (2005). Effective Communication and Information Sharing in Virtual

Teams”. Journal of Accountancy, June.

Melymuka, Kathleen (1997). Tips for Teams. Computerworld, 31(17), April 28, 72.

Mihhailova, Gerda (2007). Virtual Teams: Just a Theoretical Concept or a Widely Used

Practice? The Business Review, Cambridge, 7(1), Summer, 186-192.

Mochal, Tom (2007). 10 tips for managing virtual teams. TechRepublic, Nov. 13.

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=266


http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/5/700

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=266

Nandhakumar, J. and Baskerville, R. (2006). Durability of online teamworking:

Patterns of trust. Information, Technology and People, 19(4), 371-389.

Nemiro, J., Bradley, L., Beyerlein, M. and Beyerlein, S. (2008) The challenges of

virtual teaming. In Nemiro, J., Beyerlein, M., Bradley, L. and Beyerlein, S. (Eds.) The

Handbook of High-Performance Virtual Teams: a toolkit for collaborating across

boundaries. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1-25.

Powell, A., Piccoli., G. and Ives, B. (2004). Virtual Teams: A Review of Current

Literature and Directions for Future Research. Database for Advances in Information

Systems, 35(1), Winter, 6-36.

Schrage, Michael (1995). No More Teams!: Mastering the Dynamics of Creative

Collaboration. New York: Currency Doubleday.

http://www.amazon.com/No-More-Teams-Mastering-

Collaboration/dp/0385476035

Staples, D.S. and Webster, J. (2007). Exploring Traditional and Virtual Team

Members’ “Best Practices”: A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective. Small Group

Research, 38(1), Feb., 60-97.

Wasson, Christina (2004). Multitasking During Virtual Meetings. HR. Human

Resource Planning, 27(4), 47-60.

Wilson, Shauna (2003). Forming Virtual Teams. Quality Progress, 36(6), June, 36-41.


http://www.amazon.com/No-More-Teams-Mastering-Collaboration/dp/0385476035

http://www.amazon.com/No-More-Teams-Mastering-Collaboration/dp/0385476035

managing virtual teams

Documents

research publications

cons of virtual teams

effectiveness of virtual

benefits of virtual

leading virtual teams

director of research

research firm

moneybrandon hall research