team leadership in virtual teams
TRANSCRIPT
Bachelor Thesis Organisation & Strategy
Team leadership in virtual teams“Working together apart”
Written by:Rudy van Soest, S933007
Supervisor:Drs. A.E. Kramer
Words: 6443
2
Table of Contents.Table of Contents. ..................................................................................................................2Management Summary...........................................................................................................3Chapter 1: Research Proposal. ................................................................................................4
1.1 Problem indication. ...................................................................................................41.2 Problem statement.....................................................................................................51.3 Research questions....................................................................................................51.4 Research design and data collection. .........................................................................61.5 Structure. ..................................................................................................................6
Chapter 2: Defining virtual teams. ..........................................................................................72.1 Introduction. .............................................................................................................72.2 Defining virtual and non-virtual teams. .....................................................................72.3 Differences between virtual teams and non-virtual teams. .........................................72.3.1 Space. ....................................................................................................................82.3.2 Time. .....................................................................................................................82.3.3 Organisational boundaries. .....................................................................................82.4 Conclusion................................................................................................................9
Chapter 3: Virtual team leadership........................................................................................103.1 Introduction. ...........................................................................................................103.2 Leadership styles.....................................................................................................103.2.1 Laissez-faire leadership. .......................................................................................113.2.2 Transactional leadership.......................................................................................113.2.3 Transformational leadership. ................................................................................113.2.4 Emergent leadership.............................................................................................123.3 Conclusion..............................................................................................................13
Chapter 4: Virtual team performance. ...................................................................................144.1 Introduction. ...........................................................................................................144.2 Inputs......................................................................................................................144.3 Socio-emotional processes. .....................................................................................164.4 Task processes. .......................................................................................................174.5 Outputs. ..................................................................................................................194.6 Conclusion..............................................................................................................20
Chapter 5: Conclusions and recommendations. .....................................................................215.1 Introduction. ...........................................................................................................215.2 Conclusion..............................................................................................................215.3 Recommendations...................................................................................................225.4 Limitations..............................................................................................................22
Reference List. .....................................................................................................................23
3
Management Summary.
More and more organisations today are starting to use virtual teams. They see the benefits
other organisations are enjoying because of them, and they want to try and improve their
organisation in the same way by using virtual teams. However, there are important issues to
consider, since if not managed properly, virtual teams can lead to disaster.
Team leadership plays an important part in teams, more so even in virtual teams. Team
leadership has to manage and control the work in a team for which only modern
communication and collaboration technologies are being used to complete the task at hand.
Since virtual teams are so different in nature compared to more traditional teams, a different
kind of team leader and skill-set is required to make them effective in the organisation.
Team leadership should adopt a transformational leadership style to be able to effectively
manage the virtual team to achieve a higher performance. The best way to do that is to
initially meet face-to-face with team members, and plan subsequent face-to-face meetings, if
that is at all feasible.
4
Chapter 1: Research Proposal.
1.1 Problem indication.
Throughout history, people have always been able to achieve more while working together;
From the great pyramids of Egypt to the global organisations that exist today, working
together in teams to accomplish more than anyone could individually is from all times
(Meredith & Mantel, 1995; Cleland, 1999).
In today’s world of fast moving global markets and fierce competition organisations will need
to have the ability to adapt quickly or cease to exist in this kind of business environment
(Quinn, 1991). For this reason, as argued by Kayworth and Leidner (2002), many large
organisations have been looking at a way to be more flexible and versatile, and more team-
oriented, in order to deal with the demands of this fast changing marketplace. Ongoing
developments and improvements of information technologies have made these organisations
able to be more flexible and responsive according to Fulk and DeSanctis (1995), by ways of
utilizing virtual teams over more traditional team structures (Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1994).
Although many academic sources have small differences in their exact definition of a virtual
team, Powell, Piccoli & Ives (2004) in their meta-analysis of current literature on the subject,
came to the following: “Virtual teams are groups of geographically, organisationally and/or
time dispersed workers brought together by information and communication technologies to
accomplish one or more organisational tasks.” They also add that while these virtual teams
might be ongoing, in general they are assembled on an “as needed basis”, and therefore are
often short-lived (Powell et al., 2004). In short, a virtual team is a temporary geographically
dispersed team enabled to function by modern information and communication technology.
One of the benefits of these modern technologies is that there is no longer any need for a
company to be restricted in recruiting the best people for a specific task. They can now recruit
the best talent without having to think about geographic or cultural restrictions (Townsend,
DeMarie & Hendrickson, 1998).
Since technical support for virtual teams is now viable and widespread (Constant, Sproull &
Kiesler, 1996) a growing number of organisations is using virtual teams, or as shown by
Lipnack and Stamps (1997) many organisations are just starting to use virtual teams, and their
5
use is still growing (McDonaugh, Kahn & Barczak, 2001). While there are a wide range of
potential benefits to organisation for using these virtual teams (Townsend et al., 1998) there is
also a definite risk if these organisations do not successfully deal with the many new
challenges present in the virtual context (Victor & Stephens, 1994). According to Hambley,
O’Neil and Kline (2007) "virtual teams require new ways of working across boundaries
through systems, processes, technology, and people, which requires effective
leadership...despite the widespread increase in virtual teamwork, there has been relatively
little focus on the role of virtual team leaders."
This thesis focuses on the new challenge for team leadership with respect to the performance
of virtual teams. According to ‘management guru’ Charles Handy the dispersion of co-
workers makes it more difficult to control and oversee what they are doing, so leaders need to
manage more by trust than by control. This is also confirmed by a study done among students
by Kayworth and Leidner in 2001 that the more traditional leadership style of ‘command and
control’ is not the management style virtual leaders need (Kayworth & Leidner, 2002).
Clearly, a different kind of leadership style and skill-set is required. Therefore, this thesis
aims to identify which factors contribute to the performance of virtual teams, and what team
leadership specifically can do to increase performance.
1.2 Problem statement.
From the problem indication follows the following problem statement:
How can team leadership increase performance of virtual teams in organisations?
1.3 Research questions.
To come to an answer for the main problem, the following research questions will have to be
addressed:
To what extent do virtual teams differ from non-virtual teams?
What type of leadership suits the virtual team?
What factors can influence the performance of virtual teams?
6
1.4 Research design and data collection.
The type of research for this thesis will be exploratory, using secondary sources (literature) to
investigate the problem. As defined by Sekaran (2003), this means that the nature of the
problem will be made clearer in this thesis, as well as providing a basis for future research.
The type of research is a literature review, which is defined as a summary of the current state
of knowledge based on secondary sources, such as academic books and journal articles
(Sekaran, 2003). Results will be obtained through qualitative research, by analysing these
secondary sources.
The main concept to investigate will be ‘virtual team performance’ with the variable ‘team
leadership’ aimed at positively influencing the main concept. The most important sources of
information will come from the library of the University of Tilburg which offers several
databases, like ScienceDirect, JSTOR and ABI/Inform Global to find information, both books
and journals, on the topic. These databases in particular are being used since they provide
access to journals such as the Journal of Management and Organisation Science; all
considered being high quality journals for strategic management research. Some keywords
that will be used in the search: Virtual teams, team performance, team leadership, virtual
leadership.
1.5 Structure.
To investigate the main problem, there must first be an explanation how exactly virtual teams
are different from more traditional teams, and why this merits specialised research, in chapter
two. In order to deal with these differences, chapter three will focus on which leadership style
suits these virtual teams. A model to evaluate team performance and what factors are
influencing it will be discussed in chapter four. The final chapter will contain an answer to the
main research question based on the conclusions from the previous chapters.
7
Chapter 2: Defining virtual teams.
2.1 Introduction.
This chapter defines what is meant by a virtual team, and how it is different from other more
common organisational forms, non-virtual teams, found in organisations. A clear definition of
a virtual team will be outlined, compared to non-virtual teams. After formulating this
definition, the most important differences between the two types of teams will be highlighted.
2.2 Defining virtual and non-virtual teams.
Any team can be defined by the following definition from Cohen and Baily (1997): “A team
is a collection of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks, who share responsibility
for the outcome, who see themselves and are seen by others as an intact social entity
embedded in one or more larger social systems.” This definition fits the non-virtual teams
well, and even though in general it works for virtual teams as well, there are significant
differences compared to non-virtual teams. In the first chapter the following definition for a
virtual team is given: A virtual team is a temporary, geographically dispersed team working
across space, time and organisational boundaries, enabled by modern communication
technology (Powell et al., 2004). In general, team members from virtual teams do not have a
long history of collaboration between them, and more often than not have never met face to
face, while the exact opposite is true for non-virtual teams. In general, those non-virtual teams
have been working together longer, and meet face to face on a regular basis. Therefore, most
members of non-virtual teams live in the same area, work at the same times and usually work
within the same organisation.
2.3 Differences between virtual teams and non-virtual teams.
By using the definition of virtual teams as given above, the following factors can be
distinguished as being different for virtual teams compared to non-virtual: Space, time and
organisational boundaries. These differences are discussed next, by explaining to what extent
they are different, and what possible advantage that can bring.
8
2.3.1 Space.
Space in the definition from chapter 2.2 means that there is a significant geographical distance
between members of the team. Bal and Teo (2000) mention in their literature review that this
geographical dispersal across the world is one of the requirement for a (typical) virtual team,
thereby making a clear distinctions between a virtual team and a group of teleworkers, living
relatively close to each other working from home. A non-virtual team generally lives
relatively close to each other, so they can have face-to-face meetings regularly. The for virtual
teams normal global dispersal of team members presents organisations with the advantage of
selecting the best team members for a specific task in the team, since they do not have to be
concerned with where they reside, as that is no longer an issue due to the virtual team’s nature
(Townsend et al., 1998). They can select the best talent available for the task at hand.
2.3.2 Time.
The meaning of time for virtual teams is two-fold. Virtual teams have the ability to work
twenty-four hour days on their common task or goal, as opposed to the general eight hour
days a non-virtual team can work on them. This is one of the advantages of the geographical
dispersement. Bal and Teo (2000) see this as a characteristic, not a requirement for a virtual
team, but several other authors disagree, who think this ‘asynchronicity’, working across
different time zones, is a definite requirement for virtual teams. This gives them an advantage
on speed as tasks can be completed much faster because there is continual work on them
(George, 1996; Johnson, Heimann & O´Neill, 2001).
The second meaning of time is in the limited team duration, ‘temporality’, of virtual teams, as
opposed to most non-virtual teams, who work together for extended periods of time. These
non-virtual teams work together on multiple tasks, while the virtual team is only assembled on
an as-needed basis. George (1996) and Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) believe that this
temporality is also a requirement for a virtual team, not a characteristic, as Bal and Teo (2000)
believe. This limited team duration is not an advantage of virtual teams, but a challenge.
2.3.3 Organisational boundaries.
Organisational boundaries being crossed within the virtual team means that there is
collaboration between members from different units within the organisation, or members from
different organisations altogether. This is a big difference with non-virtual teams, who are
generally composed to people who all work in one of the aforementioned organisational units.
9
An advantage for virtual teams here is that by having this cross-boundary collaboration is that
they can get expert input, or different points of view, on specific parts of the task they are
working on. According to Bal and Teo (2000), this is another requirement for a virtual team.
2.4 Conclusion.
It is made clear that there are significant differences between virtual and non-virtual teams,
and that there are worthwhile potential benefits for using virtual teams. The benefits are the
ability to recruit the best talent available without geographic or organisational boundaries, and
their ability to continually work on tasks through their asynchronicity. However, to reap the
rewards of these benefits, important issues of the virtual team will need to be considered,
which will be covered in chapter four. In the next chapter, possible leadership styles to deal
with these issues will be discussed.
10
Chapter 3: Virtual team leadership.
3.1 Introduction.
As already mentioned in the introduction, the typical command and control leadership style
that is the most common in non-virtual teams does not work for virtual teams. They require a
very different approach from team leaders in order to deal with some of the challenges a
virtual team offers. Leadership has been a focus of research for several decades in both
psychology and organisational context. In fact, Stogdill (1974) concluded that there are about
as many different definition of leadership as there are researchers. Simply put, leadership is a
process where groups are influenced to achieve specific results (Yukl, 1998). In this chapter
several leadership styles will be looked on, and evaluated for usage in a virtual team.
3.2 Leadership styles.
Bass (1985) was the first to introduce a now common distinction when discussing leadership
styles. He argued that already existing leadership theories had their focus on the leader-
follower relationship and how the leader either rewards or sanctions follower behaviour. This
type of thinking is what, in short, makes up the transactional leadership style (Antonakis,
Avolio & Sivasubramaniam, 2003). In order to increase performance, Bass (1985) suggested
that another type of leadership was needed to help the followers to look beyond just self-
interest by avoiding sanctions or collecting rewards, but to work for the greater good of the
organisation. He referred to this type of leadership as transformational leadership (Antonakis
et. al., 2003). According to Antonakis et al. (2003), Bass (and colleagues) went on to further
develop this theory based on several studies conducted between 1985 and 1990 and eventually
came up with the full range leadership theory. The full range leadership theory is now seen as
framework for explaining leadership styles (Sivasubramaniam, Murray, Avolio & Jung,
2002). The model identifies two basic styles of leadership, each consisting of several
dimensions: Transactional and transformational. Also included, for completeness sake, was
the absence of leadership, called laissez-faire leadership, also known as non-transactional
leadership. The way this model identifies these types of leadership styles is from passive to
active and from ineffective to effective. These will be discussed in more detail, with a special
mention for emergent leadership, and an assessment which type is most useful for a virtual
team.
11
3.2.1 Laissez-faire leadership.
Laissez-faire leadership is essentially an absence of leadership, where the leader avoids
making decisions or taking responsibility, and does not use his authority to increase the
performance of the team (Antonakis et. al., 2003). It can be argued that this is not a leadership
style at all, but according to Bass and Avolio (1993) it does occur, which is why this
leadership style is still included in the theory. This style is both passive and ineffective
(Sivasubramaniam et al., 2002), and therefore not useful for any type of team, including a
virtual team.
3.2.2 Transactional leadership.
Transactional leadership deals with the team as an exchange process: They deal with team
members either by offering rewards or threatening punishment. This type of leadership can
also be classified as a ‘command and control’ type of leadership. This type of leadership has
two defining dimensions: Contingent reward and management by exception (Bass & Avolio,
1993). Contingent reward means the leader rewards a team member with agreed upon
rewards for reaching pre-determined objectives. This characterizes this leadership style as
active and effective (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Management by exception has two meanings
here: Either the leader only intervenes when a team member deviates from pre-determined
standards and is therefore punished to make sure it does not happen again, which is
considered to be passive and mostly ineffective, or the leader pro-actively monitors his team
members performance so he can intervene immediately. That approach is considered to be
active, but even so largely ineffective (Bass & Aviolio, 1993). The management by exception
characteristic would not fit a virtual team well, as it is much harder for a team leader to
intervene when he can not directly monitor the work his followers (team-members) are doing.
Simply put, it is hard to put out fires if you cannot see the smoke. Contingent reward would
suit a virtual team better, as this would ensure the needed work would be done in time and
with an acceptable level of quality. However, it is unlikely that any work would exceed
expectations (Antonakis et. al., 2003; Sivasubramaniam et al., 2002; Bass & Avolio, 1993).
3.2.3 Transformational leadership.
Transformational leadership tries to increase the performance of the team beyond
expectations, as these types of leaders try to motivate team members and aim to inspire them
(Bass & Aviolio, 1993). Lowe and Kroeck (1996) concluded from their analysis of both
transactional and transformational leadership that even though they both have a positive effect
12
on performance, the relationship between transformational leadership and performance was
significantly stronger. This can be attributed to the ability of a transformational leader who
can promote higher levels of team collaboration and performance (Sosik, Avolio, Kahai &
Jung, 1998). Transformational leadership is characterized by four dimensions: Idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration
(Bass & Avolio, 1993). Idealised influence is a fancy term for charisma: the ability to
influence team members to trust and follow the leader’s vision (Antonakis et. al., 2003).
Inspirational motivation means the leader is able to motivate his team members to perform
beyond expectations and to set clear and attainable goals for the whole team to accomplish
(Sosik, Avolio & Kahai, 1997). Intellectual stimulation means the leader is able to motivate
team members to innovative and be proactive while working on a task (Antonakis et. al.,
2003). Individualised consideration means the leader is aware of each member’s needs and
strengths, and assigns them those tasks accordingly. The leader considers and encourages
consideration of input by every member of the team (Sosik et al., 1997). This type of
leadership is found to be both active and effective, and by its inherent nature to manage more
by trust than control, it would fit well for a virtual team (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Purvanova &
Bono, 2009). This assessment is echoed by a study by Hambley et al. (2007), who found that
even though both transactional and transformational leadership are essential for good team
performance; transformational leadership is more effective in achieving organisational goals,
as well as giving team members more satisfaction with their performance. A recent study
done by Kouters (2009) has concluded that there is a positive relationship between trust and
transformational leadership, and that building follower trust is one of the main aims of
transformational leadership. As trust is one of the main factors in virtual team performance,
which will be further explained in chapter four, this is further proof that transformational
leadership is a good fit for virtual teams.
3.2.4 Emergent leadership.
While the three leadership styles from the full range leadership theory paint a clear picture on
which style would be needed for the virtual team, another type deserves special attention.
Emergent leadership can be defined as a team member receiving leadership status over time
through the group process (Yoo & Alavi, 2004). According to research on this type of
leadership done by Yoo and Alavi (2004) these leaders earn their position through
incremental influences and contributions to the team. As will be further discussed in chapter
four, based on Alexander (2000) and confirmed by Cascio (2000) all virtual team members
13
should have some leadership potential. This means any team member in a virtual team should
be fit to be the leader, and this is why emergent leadership could be an interesting form of
leadership for a virtual team. Yoo and Alavi (2004) discovered in their study, which is in line
with other research in this area of study, that in general, the strongest possible leader will
emerge from an initially leaderless team. This emergence of leadership happens particularly
through the initial interaction in the team building phase, and subsequent coordination of
future task efforts from the team. This type of leadership would also be a good fit for a virtual
team (Yoo & Alavi, 2004).
3.3 Conclusion.
From the leadership style analysis above it becomes clear that either transformational
leadership or emergent leadership is the preferred choice for leadership in a virtual team.
Transformational is a good fit since it is based on trust, and emergent leadership would suit
the virtual team because it would give the strongest possible leadership. These two styles both
have the inherent virtues to make a virtual teams performance higher. In the next chapter the
actual factors that influence the performance of a virtual team will be looked at, and if
applicable, options for leadership to positively influence them will be discussed.
14
Chapter 4: Virtual team performance.
4.1 Introduction.
A good way to evaluate the factors important in the effectiveness of virtual teams is a virtual
team life cycle model put forth by Saunders (2000). This model identifies, as shown in figure
1, three general categories in the virtual team life cycle: Inputs, processes and outputs.
Processes are subsequently split up into socio-emotional processes and task processes, to
indicate a clear difference within the process category.
Figure 1: Virtual team life cycle model by Saunders (Powell et. al., 2004).
Gaudes, Hamilton-Bogart and Marsh (2007) classify processes here as “Interdependent
actions carried out by members that transform inputs into outputs.” Each category identifies
several critical aspects of that category, as identified by the meta-analysis from Powell et al.
(2004). They listed those critical aspects under their respective category in figure 1, so in this
chapter those aspects will be discussed in more detail, under their respective category header.
4.2 Inputs.
The first part of the model, inputs, deals with the composition of the team and what resources,
skills and abilities the team can bring to the table. As listed in the model, several factors are
important here: Team design, cultural background, technical expertise and training (Powell et
al., 2004).
15
Virtual teams in general do not meet face to face the way a non-virtual team does regularly.
According to research done by Galegher and Kraut in 1994 this hampers the ability in virtual
teams to efficiently exchange information and have any effective planning. However, some of
these problems can be alleviated by starting the virtual team of with one face-to-face meeting,
and by setting clear goals and objectives to achieve (Kaiser, Tuller & McKowen, 2000). An
early face-to-face meeting can help to build trust and respect between members of the virtual
team (Suchan & Hayzak, 2001), and according to Saunders (2000) it is even necessary for
successful team development to have this sort of face-to-face at the team launch phase. The
team leader can establish a shared language and common understanding during such a face-to-
face meeting in the team design phase, which will help to set clear intermediate and final
goals which will contribute to the team’s performance (Kaiser et al., 2000; Kayworth &
Leidner, 2000).
Cultural background differences can lead to communication and coordination difficulties for
the virtual team (Kayworth & Leidner, 2000) and create obstacles in communication which
negatively impact the performance of the team. The negative effect of these cultural
differences can be mitigated however, by creating more understanding and acceptance among
team members for each other’s cultural differences (Robey, Khoo & Powers, 2000). The team
leader setting up an initial face-to-face meeting can go a long way in alleviating these kinds of
problems.
Technical expertise seems like an obvious prerequisite for any kind of virtual team(work). By
its inherent nature virtual team members are required to work with (sometimes) complex
technologies for communication and collaboration. For someone who is not well versed in
these types of technologies, this can present serious difficulties. However, according to
research done by Hollingshead, McGrath and O’Connor in 1993, this is only an entry barrier
to virtual teamwork, and any negative effects come more from the newness of technology
being used, than by the newness of using this technology in teamwork (Powell et al. 2004). As
shown by van Ryssen and Godar (2000), a lack of technical expertise and inability to deal
with technical problems will result in lower satisfaction and performance. One option for
team leaders here is to make sure team members receive additional training in technologies
the team is going to use.
16
As far as training in virtual teams goes, research has shown that the more consistency in
training among team members, the better the team will perform (van Ryssen & Godar, 2000;
Kaiser et al., 2000). Suchan and Hayzak (2001) have examined the establishment of a
mentoring program for virtual teams, and have found that this helps new team members feel
more connected which improves cohesiveness and trust among team members, which
ultimately improves performance.
4.3 Socio-emotional processes.
The socio-emotional process in teams refers to the relationships, cohesion and trust between
members of that team.
Cohesion and trust are a vital part of any teamwork: Team members must be able to rely on
each other to finish their task (Powell et al., 2004). Therefore relationship building is
important in teams. Members have to feel part of the team, contributing to reach the team’s
goals, in order to function well in them. This interdependence is reliant on three factors
(Dakrory & Abdou, 2009). First off, it is important for team members to have friendly
interaction between them. This type of interaction is best already established at the team
design (input) phase of the team and if successful there, will help to improve the team’s
performance by the personal contact in the process phase (Dakrory & Abdou, 2009). This is
supported by research done by Robey et al. (2000) and Maznevski and Chudoba (2001) who
found that building on personal relationships will ultimately improve team performance
because of the stronger socio-emotional bonds between members. Secondly, team members
should focus on establishing a ‘third way’. This term, ‘third way’, is a new micro-culture
within virtual teams introduced by Ratcheva and Vyakarnam (2001), in which the team does
not let one culture, person, idea, function or location dominate the team process. They
concluded in their research that this will help the team build stronger bonds between them. As
a last and third factor to contribute to the team’s interdependence, all members of the team
should posses leadership potential (Dakrory & Abdou, 2009). According to Alexander (2000),
all team members have to be able to initiate independent action, such as proactive discussion.
His conclusion is in line with the conclusions on emergent leadership mentioned earlier in
chapter three, based on research by Yoo and Alavi (2004); It is not recommended to place
new employees or employees in new positions on the virtual team, as this will hamper this
part of relationship building severely (Cascio, 2000). Team leadership can play an important
part here, as they can put the earlier mentioned mentoring program by Suchan and Hayzak
17
(2001) into practise and by doing so avert potential problems with employees being
unfamiliar, or initially uncomfortable, with virtual teamwork.
Cohesion in a team can be defined as members sticking together in pursuit of the team goals
and each member’s personal satisfaction (Forrester & Tashchian, 2006). Cohesion is an
important aspect of the virtual team, which is illustrated by Cohen and Bailey (1997) who
suggests it is a critical factor in the performance of virtual teams. They conclude that team
cohesion is dependant on the degree of trust between team members. Cohen and Bailey
(1997) concluded that if there is no trust between team members and as a result of that, not
much cohesion between them, performance will not reach expectations. The research results
on this issue however are mixed, as Warkentin, Sayeed and Hightower (1997) found that the
inherent technological nature of virtual teams initially hinders team cohesion so much, that
they have trouble outperforming more traditional, non-virtual teams. However, other
researchers, such as Chidambaram (1996), has found that although indeed virtual teams start
out with lower cohesion than their non-virtual counterparts, virtual team members, over time,
exchange enough personal information to develop stronger cohesion between them.
As just mentioned trust is an important factor in the performance of virtual teams (Sarker, Lau
& Sahay, 2001). Trust in virtual teams is created by team members completing tasks in time,
being proactive and a high degree of communication (Lucas, 2007). The degree of trust
created within the team depends on the performance of its members in those respects, and not
social perceptions (Clayden, 2007) and is thus an important factor in the performance of the
virtual team. However, it is difficult to assess other team member’s trustworthiness without
ever having met them (McDonough et al., 2001). A study done by Purvano and Bono (2009)
has found that trust is more important for performance in virtual teams than in face-to-face
teams, and Kouters (2009) adds to that finding that the importance of trust argues in favour of
transformational leadership for the virtual team. Transformational leadership by its nature
instils trust in team members by motivation from the leader, and improves the willingness of
team members to accept input from the leader (Kouters, 2009).
4.4 Task processes.
Task processes are about completing the task or goal set forth by the team. Issues identified
by Powell et al. (2004) in this category are communication and coordination, and the task-
technology-structure fit.
18
Communication is at the heart of any team process, and especially important to the virtual
team to perform well. Hulnick (2000) put it as follows: “If technology is the foundation of the
virtual business relationship, communication is the cement.” This is also echoed by Powell et
al. (2004) who have found several articles focussing on the importance of selecting the right
technology for the most effective communication, and to avoid any communication
difficulties in virtual teams which would have a negative effect on the team’s performance.
Two significant problems with communication within virtual teams can be distinguished.
First, there is the (obvious) problem that with virtual communication non-verbal
‘communication cues’ are missing, and as Sproull and Kiesler (1986) have found this
seriously hampers effective communication for virtual teams because of their inherent
technological means of communication. The second problem with communication is the usual
‘time-lag’ between communications. As most virtual teams are global in nature, and thus
work on tasks asynchronously, they will generally not have the opportunity to ask for
clarifications or feedback directly, which will hold up the work due to this communication
problem (Powell et. al., 2004). These two problems are related, as indicated by Saunders
(2000), that a team that would not rely solely on electronic means of communication would
not face these kinds of problems. If teams would not rely solely on electronic communication,
they could eliminate the time-lag, at least temporarily, while discussing their task-related
issues, and they would be able to pick up on any non-verbal communication cues, i.e. body
language, during a face-to-face meeting. This is another reason for team leadership to try and
make periodic face-to-face meetings happen to improve communication and subsequently,
improve performance.
Coordination within virtual teams shares a common problem with communication within
virtual teams: Time-lag. Powell et al. (2004) have found that several research papers have
found that due to the difficulties related to successful coordination across time zones and
cultural differences this is a serious problem that will negatively impact virtual team
performance. Sarker et al. (2001) found that this problem eventually solves itself over time,
but when dealing with virtual teams, that may be in short supply. Another possible solution is
put forth by Maznevski and Chudoba (2001), who suggest that the virtual team should hold
periodic face-to-face meetings if at al possible, since that helps the coordination and moves a
task forward, since the time-lag problem is temporarily dealt with.
19
The task-technology fit is important for the virtual team in this context as it is improves the
performance if the technology being used fits well with the task at hand (Hollingsbread et al.,
1993). The choice of technology is often dependant on individual preferences and experience
with a certain technology and how easy it is to use or learning to use it. For example, phone
calls or face-to-face meetings are better suited for the more ambiguous tasks as managing
conflicts or brainstorming, while electronic communication is more suited for task analysis
and tracking project status (Machrak, Rice, King, Malhotra & Ba, 2000).
4.5 Outputs.
Outputs deals with the performance of the team on the one hand, and the satisfaction of the
team experience on the other hand.
Performance in this context can be measured in many ways, for instance by decision quality,
time to complete certain tasks or projects, or end-results in terms of profit or brand awareness
for the organisation utilizing the virtual team. It makes sense to compare these types of factors
to similar tasks or projects done by more traditional, non-virtual teams, since the assumption
many companies make is that virtual teams will outperform non-virtual teams.
Another indicator for team success related to performance is satisfaction. Satisfaction deals
with how team members themselves rate the virtual team experience, again measured by
comparing it to their regular experience with more traditional, non-virtual teams.
There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that virtual and non-virtual teams differ in
performance as of yet: The results of various studies done are mixed. For example, a study
done by Warkentin et al. (1997) claims that virtual teams do not outperform non-virtual
teams, and that non-virtual team members’ satisfaction with their team-experience was higher
than their virtual team counterparts, while other studies reported better performance of the
virtual team (Sharda, Barr & McDonnell, 1988). Powell et al. (2004) note there are also
several studies who did not find any significant differences in performance. Some studies
found that satisfaction over time for members of the virtual team is higher than that of more
traditional teams (Eveland & Bikson 1988), while again Warkentin et al. (1997) contradicts
these results by his findings that traditional team members are more satisfied with their team
experience.
20
4.6 Conclusion.
Trust and cohesiveness among team members and effective communication are the main
pillars in virtual teams that will lead to higher performance. There are definite challenges in
order to handle these to achieve a higher performance, which already starts at the team design
(input) phase of the virtual team’s life cycle, and continue on in the socio-emotional and task-
oriented processes that take place in a team while working together towards a common goal.
What is made clear in this chapter is that there are definite challenges to ensure high virtual
team performance, however, as a solution presented several times during the discussion of the
issues facing the virtual team, periodic face-to-face meetings between virtual team-members
would go a long way in dealing with these challenges.
21
Chapter 5: Conclusions and recommendations.
5.1 Introduction.
In this final chapter of this bachelor thesis the main problem statement will be answered, by
answering the research questions. Also some recommendations for directions of future
research, and some limitations of this bachelor thesis will be briefly discussed.
5.2 Conclusion.
To come to an answer to the main research question, how can team leadership increase
performance of virtual teams in organisations? a few research questions to come to an answer
were discussed.
The first research question, to what extent do virtual teams differ from non-virtual teams?
showed that virtual teams and non-virtual teams are quite different in terms of space, time and
organisational boundaries. Significant geographical distance between team members,
asynchronicity in working on tasks and not necessarily belonging to the same organisation,
combined with limited team duration, showed that virtual teams were definitely different from
their non-virtual counterparts, for which the opposite of those characteristics is true in most
cases.
The second research question dealt with leadership. What type of leadership suits the virtual
team? With the help of the Full Range Leadership model, three basic leadership styles were
examined. Laissez-faire was quickly dismissed as a viable option for any team. Transactional
leadership was found to be only partly effective, as leadership by control is much more
difficult for virtual teams than it is for more traditional teams. Transformational leadership
however, by its very nature much more aimed at creating trust among team members and
making them trust the leader is a much more natural fit for a virtual team. Emergent
leadership deserved special attention as a viable alternative to purely transformational
leadership.
The last research questioned aimed to provide more insight into which factors influence
virtual team performance: What factors can influence the performance of virtual teams?
Based on a meta-analysis done by Powell et al. (2004) by using the virtual life cycle model by
22
Saunders (2000) several potential issues with virtual team performance were identified and
discussed. Trust and cohesiveness among team members and effective communication proved
to be the main pillars that would lead to higher virtual team performance.
The main question, how can team leadership increase performance of virtual teams in
organisations? can now be answered. The best way to increase performance is to deal with the
issues of trust and cohesiveness, while making sure team members can also communicate
more effectively. The best solution would be to adopt a transformational leadership style (or
an emergent leader adopting such a style), in order to achieve performance above
expectations. An important part in getting there would be to start the virtual team off with an
initial face-to-face meeting, and subsequent periodic face-to-face meetings are highly
recommended to increase the virtual team performance.
5.3 Recommendations.
One of the future research areas of interest based on the analysis performed in this thesis
would be emergent leadership, and its exact advantages or disadvantages for virtual teams.
While there is a reasonable amount of research done on its effects for more traditional teams,
there is hardly any research available on its effects for virtual teams. Another interesting
research area would be the basic leadership of virtual teams. Most research on virtual teams is
on their inability to meet face-to-face, and on their reliance on electronic means to
communicate, while other perspectives, like leadership effects, remain mostly uncovered.
5.4 Limitations.
One of the limitations in this bachelor thesis was the time constraint of writing it. In the
limited time allotted after finding an area of research, it is difficult to find all the relevant
materials on the subject. It can perhaps lead to an overvaluation of certain sources because no
contradictory information was found. Another limitation of this thesis is that a lot of the
research results found on the subject were conducted on short-term studies of student teams
dealing with fictional scenarios. More ‘real-world’ scenarios would have been preferable to
try and add more managerial relevance to the subject. However, hopefully, future research
will take this into consideration.
23
Reference List.
Alexander, S. (2000). Virtual teams going global. Infoworld, vol. 22(46), 55-56.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. & Sivasubramaniam, S. (2003). Context and leadership: an
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 14, 261-295.
Bal, J. & Teo, P.K. (2000). Implementing virtual teamworking part 1: A methodology for
introducing virtual teamworking. Logistics Information Management, vol. 13(1), 346-352.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free press.
Bass, B. & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership: a response to critiques.
Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and Directions, pp 49-80.
Cascio, W.F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. Academy of Management Executive, vol.
14(3), 81.
Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS
Quarterly, vol. 20(2), 143-163.
Clayden, J. (2007). The development of trust in virtual teams: An exploratory examination of
communication technologies. PhD thesis, Capella university.
Cleland, D. (1999). Project management: Strategic design and implementation. New York:
McGraw & Hill.
Cohen, S.G. & Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research
from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, vol. 23(3), 239-290.
Constant, D., Sproull, L. & Kiesler S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of
electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organisation Science, vol. 7(2), 119-135.
24
Dakrory, M. & Abdou, H. (2009). Virtual teams processes: A conceptualisation and
application. Problems and Perspectives in Management, vol. 7(3), 15-26.
Eveland, J. & Bikson, T. (1988). Work group structures and computer support: A field
experiment. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, vol. 6(4), 354-379.
Fulk, J. & DeSanctis, G. (1995). Electronic communication and changing organisational
forms. Academy of Management Review, vol. 36(5), 337-349.
Galegher, J. & Kraut, R.E. (1994). Computer mediated communication for intellectual
teamwork: An experiment in group writing. Information Systems Research, Vol. 5(2), 110-
138.
Gaudes, A., Hamilton-Bogart, B. & Marsh, S. (2007). A framework for constructing effective
virtual teams. The Journal of E-working, vol. 1, 83-97.
George, J. (1996). Virtual best practice: How to successfully introduce virtual team working.
Teams, November issue, pp 38-45.
Forrester, W. & Tashchian, A. (2006). Modelling the relationship between cohesion and
performance in student work groups. International Journal of Management, vol. 23(3).
Hambley, L.A., O’Neill, T.A. & Kline, T.J.B. (2007). Virtual team leadership: The effects of
leadership styles and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes.
Organisation Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 103, 1-20.
Hollingshead, A, McGrath, J. & O’Connor, K. (1993). Group task performance and
communication technology: A longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face
groups. Small Group Research, vol. 24(3), 307-333.
Hulnick, G. (2000). Doing business virtually. Communication World, vol. 17(3), 33-36.
25
Jarvenpaa, S. & Ives, B. (1994). The global organisation of the future: Information
management opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Information Systems, vol.
10(4), 25-57.
Jarvenpaa, S & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams.
Organisation Science, vol. 10(6), 791-865.
Johnson, P., Heimann, V. & O’Neill, K. (2001). The ‘wonderland’ of virtual teams. Journal of
Workplace Learning, vol. 13(1), 24-30.
Kaiser, P, Tuller, W. & McKowen, D. (2000). “Student team projects by internet. Business
Communication, vol. 63(4), 75-82.
Kayworth, T. & Leidner, D. (2000). The global virtual manager: A prescription for success.
European Management Journal, vol. 18(2), 183-194.
Kayworth, T & Leidner, D. (2002). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. Journal
of Management Information Systems, vol. 18(3), 7-40.
Kouters, S. (2009). Transformational leadership and organisational commitment in a virtual
context: The role of trust in the leader. Master thesis, Tilburg University.
Lipnack, J. & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time and
organisations with Technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lowe, K. & Kroeck, K. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional
leadership: a meta-analytic review of MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, vol. 7(3), 385-
426.
Lucas, K.A. (2007). Examining servant leadership within virtual and face-to-face teams. PhD
thesis, School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship.
26
Machrzak, A., Rice R., King, N., Malhotra, A. & Ba, S. (2000). Computer-mediated inter-
organisational knowledge-sharing: Insights from a virtual team innovating using a
collaborative tool. Information Resources Management Journal, vol. 13(1), 44-53.
Maznevski, M. & Chudoba, K. (2001). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team
dynamics and effectiveness. Organisation Science, vol. 11(5), 473-492.
McDonaugh, E, Kahn, K. & Barczak, G. (2001). An investigation of the use of global, virtual
and collocated new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
vol.18(2), 110-120.
Meredith, J. & Mantel, S (1995). Project management: A managerial approach. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Powell, D., Piccoli, G. & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: a review of current literature and
directions for future research. The Database for Advances in Information Systems, vol. 35(1),
6-36.
Purvanova, R. & Bono, J. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face and
virtual teams. The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 20, 343-357.
Ratcheva, V. & Vyakarman, S. (2001). Exploring team formation processes in virtual
partnerships. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, vol. 12(6/7).
Robey, D., Khoo, H. & Powers, C. (2000). Situational learning in cross-functional virtual
teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 43(1), 51-66.
Sarker, S., Lau, F. & Sahay, S. (2001). Using an adapted grounded theory approach for
inductive theory building about virtual team development. Database for Advances in
Information Systems, vol. 32(1), 38-56.
Saunders, C.S. (2000). Virtual teams: Piecing Together the Puzzle. in Zmud, R.W. (Ed.)
Framing the Domain of IT Management: Projecting the Future Through the Past. Cincinnati,
OH: Pinnaflex.
27
Sekaran, U. (2003) Research methods for business: a skill-building approach. New York:
Wiley.
Sharda, R., Barr, S.H. & McDonnell, J.C. (1988). Decision support system effectiveness : a
review and an empirical test. Management Science, vol. 34(2), 139-157.
Sivasubramaniam, M., Murray, W., Avolio, D. & Jung, D. (2002). A longitudinal model of
the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group and
Organisation Management, vol. 27, 66-96.
Sosik, J., Avolio, B. & Kahai, S. (1997). Effects of leadership and anonymity on group
potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 82(1), 89-103.
Sosik, J., Avolio, B., Kahai, S. & Jung, D. (1998). Computer-supported work group potency
and effectiveness: The role of transformational leadership, anonymity and task
interdependence. Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 14(3), 491-511.
Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context clues: Electronic mail in
organisational communication. Management Science, vol. 32(11), 1492-1512.
Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: a survey of theory and research. New York:
The Free Press.
Suchan, J. & Hayzek, G. (2001). The communication charactaristics of virtual teams: A case
study. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol.44(3), 174-186.
Townsend, A.M., DeMarie, S.M., Hendrickson, A.R (1998). Virtual teams: The technology
and workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, vol. 12(3), 17-29.
Van Ryssen, S. & Godar S. (2000). Going international without going international:
Multinational virtual teams. Journal of International Management, vol. 6, 49-60.
28
Victor, B. & Stephens, C. (1994) The dark side of the new organisational forms: An editorial
essay. Organisation Science, vol. 5(4), 479-482.
Warkentin, M.E., Sayeed, L. & Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face
teams: An exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decision Sciences, vol. 28(4),
975-996.
Yoo, Y. & Alavi, M. (2004). Emergent leadership in virtual teams: what do emergent leaders
do. Information and Organisation, vol. 14, 27-58.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organisations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.