| Virtual Teams: A Proposed Research Agenda |
| | Furst, Stacie | U. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill | fursts@icarus.bschool.unc.edu | (919) - 962 - 4261 |
| | Blackburn, Richard S. | U. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill | dick_blackburn@unc.edu | (919) - 962 - 3162 |
| | Rosen, Benson | U. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill | ben_rosen@unc.edu | (919) - 962 - 3166 |
| | Contemporary competitive demands have forced many organizations to increase levels of flexibility and adaptability in their operations. A growing number of such organizations have explored the virtual environment as one means of achieving increased responsiveness. In particular, the use of virtual teams appears to be on the increase. However, the increased use of virtual teams has not been accompanied by increased research efforts to better understand the causes and consequences of successful virtual teams. In this paper, we assess the appropriateness of Hackman's (1983) model of group effectiveness for understanding the sources of virtual team effectiveness. While much of Hackman's model remains relevant in a virtual environment, distinctions between groups and teams and between co-located and virtual environments suggest that modifications and additions to this model are necessary. Following from our proposed changes, we offer a set of research propositions that we believe will advance future research on effective virtual teams beyond anecdote and description. Implications of this research agenda for managers of virtual teams and human resource professionals are also discussed. |
| | Keywords: Teams; Virtual; Groups |
| Twenty-First Century Teamwork: Defining Competencies for Virtual Teams |
| | Horvath, Lisa | George Washington U. | lhorvath@gwu.edu | (202)-994-1041 |
| | Tobin, Timothy J. | George Washington U. | ttobin@gwu.edu | (703)-729-8396 |
| | The increasing focus on global organizations, horizontal organizational structures and inter-organizational cooperation has created the virtual work team. This paper identifies the research-based similarities and differences between traditional and virtual teams and presents a conceptual framework specifying virtual team competencies based on virtual team performance research. Related organizational interventions are presented. |
| | Keywords: Virtual Teams; Competencies; Team Effectiveness |
| Managing the Formation of Virtual Team Categories and Prototypes by Managing Information: A SIT / SCT Perspective |
| | Brandon, David P. | U. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign | dbrandon@students.uiuc.edu | (217) 344-2683 |
| | Pratt, Michael G. | U. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign | Mpratt@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu | 217-244-6023 |
| | Virtual teams are a relatively new, yet increasingly pervasive, use of groups by organizations. However, little is known regarding how
virtual team members come to know about and to identify with their virtual team. Using social identity theory and self-categorization
theory, we propose that information about a virtual team is used to create the group's "image," which is present in group categories
and prototypes. Moreover, we argue that the formation of a group image precedes group identification or the internalization of a virtual team
identity. In our paper, we develop propositions relating to the formation of group categories and prototypes (i.e., group image). We also discuss how
managers can influence the formation of categories and prototypes by creating, increasing, or decreasing the information that virtual
teams receive. |
| | Keywords: identity; virtual teams; social identity theory / SCT |
| A Model of the Effects of Geographical Dispersion on Work Teams |
| | Cramton, Catherine Durnell | George Mason U. | ccramton@som.gmu.edu | (301) 699-1015 |
| | Webber, Sheila Simsarian | George Mason U. | swebber@gmu.edu | [(703)-824-8284] |
| | This study examines the impact of geographical dispersion on key work team processes and outcomes. A theoretical model is presented in which the impact of geographical dispersion on work team outcomes (performance, team spirit, and difficulty) is mediated through two distinct paths: work processes (communication, coordination and control), and member relationships (trust and dependability). The model also compares the impact of dispersion on work processes and outcomes with that of another often-powerful predictor, goal clarity, and an important antecedent, the nature of the client relationship. To test the model, a study was conducted of 215 members of 38 work teams fielded by an international information technology firm that frequently uses dispersed team designs. Results show a significant negative relationship between dispersion and work processes. The relationship between dispersion and member relationships also was negative, approaching significance. Perhaps most importantly, we found that dispersion was a strong significant negative predictor of team performance, beyond that accounted for by the mediated relationship between dispersion, work processes and performance. Possible explanations for this finding are explored. We also examined the impact of goal clarity and client relationships in the tested model and demonstrated the considerable power of these predictors relative to dispersion. |
| | Keywords: geographically dispersed teams; project teams; client relationships |